|Anonymous | Login | Signup for a new account||2018-09-25 06:14 PDT|
|My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap|
|View Issue Details|
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0005517||ardour||features||public||2013-06-07 02:02||2018-09-13 11:18|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0005517: New intermediate 'Regions in active edit groups are edited together' setting|
|Description||I think that a setting for 'Regions in active edit groups are edited together' that considers regions equivalent when the bounds of one are either equal to or lie within the bounds of another would be useful.|
This would fit my workflow editing multi-track live recordings very well, where in general, all tracks are edited together, but the timing of the edits in one or two tracks occasionally has to be adjusted. Nether of the two existing region equivalency modes does exactly what I want here: 'only when identical' of course stops working as soon as any regions are edited slightly differently within the group, and 'whenever they overlap' selects regions on both sides of the edit.
|Additional Information||ASCII-art examples to clarify how I think this new mode should work:|
- are equivalent.
- are not.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Attached Files|| enclosed-equivalent-regions.patch [^] (8,874 bytes) 2018-09-13 06:25 [Show Content]
enclosed-equivalent-regions-5.12.patch [^] (7,609 bytes) 2018-09-13 09:59 [Show Content]
|I like it.|
I started to hack this together, and it seemed like a doddle, but I got totally stumped thinking up a name for the function. The standard 'identical' equivalence mode function is Region::equivalent() and the 'overlap' mode is Region::overlap_equivalent(), but what to call this one?
Also, I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to change the use_overlap_equivalency config setting from a bool to an int/enum for this third type, or to introduce a new config variable, or just change the overlap equivalency to work like this. Who uses overlap equivalency, anyway?
I've implemented this now (I have it in a local branch), since I wanted it (especially in the face of #4834).
I made a new enumerated "region-equivalence" config setting, and got rid of the old "use-overlap-equivalency" boolean one, so anyone who had enabled the old one would lose their setting if the patch were to be merged as-is. I hope that's OK - I'd think that anyone who wants this setting knows they want it.
There's also a discussion to be had about what the default should be - obviously I'd like it to be my new mode, but I guess there's a consistency argument in favour of making it be the 'exact' equivalence mode as at present.
|Attached enclosed-equivalent-regions-5.12.patch applies on master (and 5.12), and Works For Me™.|
|git-applied to master and committed as 9321f46c453b|
|2013-06-07 02:02||colinf||New Issue|
|2013-06-10 09:10||paul||Note Added: 0014963|
|2013-06-10 10:29||colinf||Note Added: 0014973|
|2014-09-19 11:36||colinf||Note Added: 0015889|
|2018-09-13 06:25||colinf||File Added: enclosed-equivalent-regions.patch|
|2018-09-13 09:59||colinf||File Added: enclosed-equivalent-regions-5.12.patch|
|2018-09-13 10:02||colinf||Note Added: 0020385|
|2018-09-13 11:18||paul||Note Added: 0020386|
|2018-09-13 11:18||paul||Status||new => resolved|
|2018-09-13 11:18||paul||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2018-09-13 11:18||paul||Assigned To||=> paul|
|Copyright © 2000 - 2018 MantisBT Team|