Sites browsing

• Aug 2, 2018 - 04:58

From MsS.com website (where, incidentally, the copyright is 2017) you can reach this forum. Maybe we could have a button to go in the reverse direction (from org to com)

18080201.png

Comments

• Aug 2, 2018 - 17:24

No you can't see this when logged out, but you see the "log in" link that will allow you to log in and then use it to navigate to the .com site. I don't think it's very useful to navigate between the sites if you aren't logged in.

Having said all of that, it doesn't make much sense to have a forum link when you're in the forum, so a .com link there would make more sense.

Reply

• Aug 2, 2018 - 17:37

So my request (expressed badly):
In the MsS.org page could we have a link at the bottom, as in the attached picture ( False Button 'Shared Scores'), to reach the MsS,com page?
Clicking on the blue logo at the top left no longer leads (as it did before) to the page of (today UG) MuseScore.com .
My idea is to make it easier and more transparent navigation between the two sites for those who should approach, without being registered, out of curiosity ...

Reply

• Aug 2, 2018 - 17:57

Ot, just to chat.
Usually I don't have personal requests for help, because by now I don't use the software much, having abandoned the amateur choir where I made the bass a long time ago.
But, from my point of view, I owe a debt of honor to MuseScore, so I tried and try to spread its knowledge of this software.
I abuse your patience and courtesy when I give inaccurate answers but often it is just a way to bring the questions to the attention of those who, better than me, can provide adequate answers.
When I get some ideas, even if strange, I share them with the community. Perhaps it could be a starting point for further improvement. It may be a minor nuisance for some people, but I think you can bear this in the common interest.
I also know that it will be difficult to believe but I am talkative, here you are safe only because the language limits me.
I know you enough to imagine your next response (received at this time) and so I had time to compose this one of mine
I rarely write so extensively but there is always time for a coffee with a friend, I think ;-)

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (Which I hope has not betrayed me)

Reply

• Aug 2, 2018 - 19:14

Thank you very much for the kind words. The translator did very well.

I do use the software every day for projects to keep me busy while I'm unable to work. Because of that, I don't go too far from the current version for testing and I am even hesitant to upgrade to the newest version until I feel it will not crash and cause me to lose my work. The reports of crashes in version 2.3.2 have convinced me to not make that upgrade, even though the invisible lines is a feature I very much wanted. The 2.3.2 crashes that have been reported seem to apply to large orchestral scores like I normally work on so I'll wait for the next update.

Like you, I do enjoy talking to a friend over a cup of coffee (which I literally have in my hand right now). Honestly, if someone asked me which version they should use I would tell them to pick 2.1, which is the last version that lasconic controlled. It seems since MuseScore was bought, there is an attitude that new versions must be released that did not exist previously. This is a corporate attitude now that pushes updates before lasconic would have released them. It's also the reason we are currently at version 2.3.2. It's probably due to paid employees trying to prove they deserve their paychecks. In my opinion version 2.3 should still be in the planning stages.

With MuseScore continuing to be an open source project, I feel that even though I don't write programs I can still contribute to making MuseScore the best open source software and improving others opinion about it in these forums. You are also a very good ambassador for this program in these forums, even those you don't understand. Many times I have quickly responded to a thread only to to see you have responded quicker. The usual promptness of your responses is one of the things that impresses other users the most. Because of you and a few other like you, this is unlike any other forum where responses take several hours at best.

I look forward to seeing you on the forums.

Mike

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 18:17

Just curious, what reports of crashes do you have in mind? If you mean #274907: Crash if adding instrument to the middle of a score with many instruments I'd say there is an almost 0% chance that this crash is new with 2.3.2 since nothing changed in that area of the code, and also a close to 0% chance that the issue has anything to do with the size of the score. And in any case, it seems not reproducible. I'm not aware of any other similar reports, nor in fact any other new crash reports for 2.3.2. So if you know of some, would you mind linking to them so we can make sure they get added to the issue tracker?

As for the general state of releases, I'd say there are tradeoffs. Sure, more testing before releases is always good. On the other hand, even with more testing, 2.1 had a number of very serious bugs that were reported almost instantly upon release but that basically never got fixed until 2.2 came out almost a year later. To me, that's not good either. I like seeing point releases to address regressions. My sense is that the main reason this didn't happen before is that making such point releases takes time and energy, and no one was being paid to do that, so understandably the volunteers working on the project chose to focus on 3.0 rather than continuing to improve 2.x. So from that perspective, having more people in involved in the release process is a good thing - it makes it more possible to have these bug fix releases while still allowing development to continue on 3.0. So I think it's a fantastic sign of responsiveness that 2.2 was followed quickly by 2.2.1, and then 2.3 by 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.

Anyhow, as a heavy MuseScore user myself, there is absolutely no way I would recommend 2.1 to anyone over 2.3.2. Too many hundreds of bugs fixed since then that I couldn't stomach having to live or inflict on anyone else with if we don't have to - and thankfully, we don't. To say nothing of the new features and other improvements. Sure, each release also introduces some new bugs - 2.1 did, 2.2 did, 2.3 did, etc - but without exception each release since 2.0 has fixed many many times more bugs than it has introduced.

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 19:42

I stand by what I said. The bugs in 2.1 were more tolerable than the crashes I experience randomly in version 2.3.x. I only used 2.2.x for a very short time so I don't remember much about that. Every software program has bugs, this is simply due to the fact that people are fallible. If I knew how to recreate the seemingly random crashes I would post bug reports. Each person has to make his own decision based upon his tastes. Most of the features added after 2.1 either make MuseScore unusable on my system or are unnecessary for most music. I removed MDL from my computer due to this. Other features added are more for the unusual, such as playing repeats inside of a DC or DS section. This feature is mostly used by people who have no formal training in music. The music would be better if they used the measures to add more development rather than just time. Yes, this was an often requested feature and one of the reasons MuseScore is so good is that the developers ARE responsive to the requests of users. As I once said, from what I see in the forums, the average user has little music experience and are using MuseScore to learn about music. This is definitely a good thing.

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 20:00

Ah, I see, you are talking about the crashes you yourself see, not ones you've seen reported here. Sorry to hear you've been having trouble. You had mentioned "reports of crashes in version 2.3.2" but maybe you misspoke? Hopefully you'll be able to figure out ways of reproducing your own crashes in pre-2.3.2 so we can fix them, assuming they weren't fixed already in 2.3.2 which is quite possible (according to the release notes, over 25% of the changes from 2.3.1 to 2.3.2 were fixes for crashes). BTW, it's entirely possible the crashes are being triggered new things in the scores you are working on and would also have occurred in 2.1 as well - that turns out to be the case a significant percentage of the time when crashes are reported. But it's really the corruptions that were often caused by 2.1 and earlier release that I had in mind in saying I wouldn't want to force 2.1 or earlier releases on anyone who had a choice.

Anyhow, yes, indeed, every software program has bugs. That's pretty much a given. It's also pretty much a given that each release fixes bugs in the previous release but introduces new ones. The hope is that more bugs are fixed than introduced, and in my experience this is true way more often than not. In particular, by any objective measure (eg, our issue tracker) this is true of each MuseScore release since 2.0.

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 20:54

The difference between 2.1 and later versions is that 2.1 never not crashed with normal daily use, 2.3.1 does. No doubt, some of the crashes were introduced in a 2.2.x version but the short time between releases did not allow people to understand the origins of problems. Only time will tell. I suspect the majority of the new crashes are based upon changes that allow for the introduction of add-ons like MDL. Since the crashes happen only occasionally, it is difficult to zero in on the issues.

One of the new differences is the use of release candidates. Previously, the release candidates were given time to be tested. For several months improvements would be made in the program daily and some people would test every new release. Others like myself would continue to use the previous release or occasionally download a nightly to see how it was working. When the release candidate was announced, there was an urgency to assure the new release was stable, and often previously unknown bugs were found, probably due to a larger number of people concentrating on the RC. There was no announced schedule for release of the actual version. It was released when the bugs were worked out. This seemed to be about 2-4 weeks. Now, once the release candidate is announced, you can be sure the actual version will be released in about 10 days. I suspect that, unfortunately, someone has a date for the release of version 3.0 that will very likely be met. I hope I'm wrong and that the same care will be used in releasing version 3.0 that was previously used in releasing new versions.

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 21:23

Understood, and FWIW I agree the some of the recent release candidates have not been given enough time. I figure it's a learning experience for all involved.

Anyhow, I think Shoichi is right, this is the wrong place to continue this conversation, and there's probably nothing new to say right now anyhow, so I'll leave it at that.

Reply

• Aug 3, 2018 - 21:53

@Shoichi

You were the first person I met on these forums. Your quick, to the point replies helped me to get going with MuseScore. It also impressed me immensely with this community on this forum. First impressions are important, and you made that first impression on me. To my mind, this community is a helpful, quick and responsive one, because you were like that with me. I guess what I am trying to say, is that you are already one of the best ambassadors MuseScore could ever have asked for. Thank you for all that you have done to help make MuseScore easier to use for countless newcomers. We do see it and we do appreciate it.

Buona musica ;-)

Reply

• Aug 2, 2018 - 20:56

Just a further comment on this; anyone who has clicked on those links has discovered that they navigate to the .com page, but that is in no way clear. Even an indication that you are leaving .org would be helpful.

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.