On Monday 22 Dec 2003 5:27 pm, Joerg Anders wrote: This is the second time recently that you've announced a perceived defect in Rosegarden as part of your release note without bothering to contact Rosegarden's developers about it. I think that's rather ungentlemanly. I don't recall ever having been uncivil toward you or your software and I would consider it a shame if a Rosegarden developer set aside space in a Rosegarden release note to criticise any other free software program, especially if they hadn't notified its developers first. For what it's worth, your note is also misleading because it implies that Rosegarden's MusicXML files don't contain any information that can be used to deduce accidentals for display. They do contain the basic <alter> elements for shifted pitch; they just don't contain accidentals where (for example) a user has requested that one be shown explicitly even though it's also in the key. While this is not the complete showstopper you seem to suggest, it is certainly a limitation, and it's one I hadn't realised was there so a bug report would have been very welcome. Chris

On Tuesday 23 Dec 2003 7:48 am, Joerg Anders wrote: About the problems mentioned in your previous release note, yes; not the point about accidentals in your latest one. That's not a problem -- he has no obligation to do that, and it was nice of him to report the previous batch of bugs. But he's not the one sending out your release note. I also have no problem with your telling your users that certain things won't work. But you could so easily have resolved the problem and thus made _your_ program more useful to _your_ users by also notifying us about it and encouraging us to fix it. It's not very useful to see interoperability as a contest. And no, I wouldn't be bothering to comment at all, if it weren't the second time in a row you'd done this, or if you'd let us know that you were seeing this particular problem, or if you'd placed the information as a warning in the README or FAQ for NoteEdit rather than choosing to proclaim it to as many different mailing lists and Usenet groups as you thought were even vaguely relevant, or if the information you gave were not actually somewhat misleading. Any one of those would have done. I don't think I'm asking for any more than common courtesy here. Anyway, enough of this unseasonal stuff. I appreciate that you probably just saw it as the most practical way to get the information across. Chris

I remembered incorrectly. See Luke's reply.