Lmms: Rename "Beat+Bassline Editor" to "Pattern Editor"

[unfa]

The titles says it all.
Let's have shorter and more universal names,

[andrewrk]

I think we had this discussion before but I don't remember the results.

:+1:

[coppolaemilio]

+1 to Pattern Editor

[unfa]

Yup, we had it, but the result didn't make it here. So I'm here to keep it alive. I think it's important.

[tresf]

:+1:

[diizy]

I don't know about this, because the patterns on the instrument tracks are also patterns, so it'd be confusing.

How about something like "loop editor"?

[tresf]

or "Pattern Group", because it's really just a bunch of Patterns grouped together.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:06 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

or "Pattern Group", because it's really just a bunch of Patterns
grouped together.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33183976.

But so is pretty much everything, if you think about it... everything in
existence is just "patterns grouped together".

No but seriously though, "pattern group" sounds a bit too static, like
it's just one group of patterns, when it's actually a dynamic editor
that can have many "pattern groups"...

If we change song editor to "sequencer", then bb-editor could become
"beat sequencer". Or "loop sequencer".

Or, how about this: "Master sequencer" and "Loop sequencer". Consistent,
and clear.

[andrewrk]

Arguments in favor of pattern:

• "Pattern" does not imply that this is necessarily only for "beats".
• "Pattern" is more concise than "loop sequencer".
• "Pattern" implies repetition, which is the main idea of this particular UI

[tresf]

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring to it and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively in reference to samples that are beatmapped.

-Tres

[unfa]

Please. Let's not make this needlessly complicated. I think FL Studio got
it right.
Patterns are for using several instruments to make a single "pattern".
I don't think "Loops" is good, because I frequently don't loop these, but
arrange them in patterns instead.
What we have in the Sequencer are "Clips" or "Regions" - these are two
industry-approved names for these things. Let's not forse the users to
learn another funky words we can find in the dictionary, just because
"Pattern" sound to plain or generic.

Following this reasoning we'd call the Mixer a "Mix editor'.

All in all - we really had this discussion before. I just think that
"Beat+Bassline" is too long, not descriptive enough and too strange. And
using "B+B" abbreviation doesn't make it any more understandable. We don't
need to tell users "Here's where you'e supposed to put your beats and
basslines" with the name, I think they can figure it out for themselves.

Shall we?

2014/1/24 Vesa V [email protected]

I don't know about this, because the patterns on the instrument tracks are
also patterns, so it'd be confusing.

How about something like "loop editor"?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33183797
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[unfa]

Thank you Tres. This is exaclty what I felt...

2014/1/24 Tres Finocchiaro [email protected]

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring to it
and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively in
reference to a samples that is beatmapped.

-Tres

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33184542
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:16 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring
to it and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively
in reference to a samples that is beatmapped.

-Tres

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33184542.

"Loop" is a generic term and used for anything that loops. A sample can
have loop points. A sequence can have loop points. A song can have loop
points. A loop is something that loops, ie. repeats, over and over.

FL studio used to be called "FruityLoops". Where did they get that from?
Was the entire software just for making beatmapped samples?

I still say "pattern editor" doesn't work here, because the bb-patterns
aren't the only patterns - the pieces of sequence on instrument tracks,
the ones that are edited with piano roll, those are also called "patterns".

The bb-editor is used for not just any patterns but specifically
_repeating_ patterns, hence why I think "loop editor" or "loop
sequencer" would be better.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:16 AM, unfa wrote:

Please. Let's not make this needlessly complicated. I think FL Studio got
it right.
Patterns are for using several instruments to make a single "pattern".
I don't think "Loops" is good, because I frequently don't loop these, but
arrange them in patterns instead.
What we have in the Sequencer are "Clips" or "Regions" - these are two
industry-approved names for these things. Let's not forse the users to
learn another funky words we can find in the dictionary, just because
"Pattern" sound to plain or generic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(music)

[tresf]

:+2: for Pattern Editor then.

[pgiblock]

Project Editor (song), Pattern Editor (bb), Automation Editor, Piano Roll Editor. Possibly drop the "Editor" for the window titles. Technically all of the above are "sequencers"

[unfa]

_+1_

Paul, can you make these names a reality? I think that the word "Editor" is
redundant but it differentiates the windows from "Tracks" and "Clips" that
are other objects.

We can have:

• Pattern/Automation Editor
• Pattern/Automation Track
• Pattern/Automation Clip

2014/1/24 Paul Giblock [email protected]

Project Editor (song), Pattern Editor (bb), Automation Editor, Piano Roll
Editor. Possibly drop the "Editor" for the window titles. Technically all
of the above are "sequencers"

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33190036
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[pgiblock]

I think calling it "Foo Editor" Is important in literature and when speaking about the product. It differentiates the GUI component from the model being operated on. However, when you are sitting in front of the LMMS GUI, you already know it is an editor from context. Thus, restating "Editor" on the title bar is a waste. I agree with "Track", that is universal and already adhered to. "Clip" is nice. I generally think of "Clip" as an section of audio, but that is probably a misunderstanding on my part. The LMMS wiki instead calls them "segments". The Packt LMMS book calls them "Elements", but that name is too generic for my taste.

[unfa]

Could it be simply "Project" and "Pattern"?

Pro Tools calls these "clips", that's what I learned today in a school ;)

2014/1/24 Paul Giblock [email protected]

I think calling it "Foo Editor" Is important in literature and when
speaking about the product. It differentiates the GUI component from the
model being operated on. However, when you are sitting in front of the LMMS
GUI, you already know it is an editor from context. Thus, restating
"Editor" on the title bar is a waste. I agree with "Track", that is
universal and already adhered to. "Clip" is nice. I generally think of
"Clip" as an section of audio, but that is probably a misunderstanding on
my part. The LMMS wiki instead calls them "segments". The Packt LMMS book
calls them "Elements", but that name is too generic for my taste.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33193622
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[pgiblock]

Right, I like that idea for the GUI window frames. But, if I was instructing someone, I'd prefer to say "now focus the pattern editor" and not "focus the pattern". It isn't clear what is meant since I could be referring to the pattern segment seen in the project editor or to double click the segment and display/reassign the pattern editor.

This reminds me. The LMMS source code has a concept of pattern. This is a "MIDI segment" or "MIDI clip" (not really MIDI, but it is an event-based note-triggering element). This pattern (a C++ class) represents both the piano-roll and BB-editor (step-based) note segments. So, there is still no name for the midi-segment as seen in either the instrument track or in a "drum track" of the newly named pattern editor?

According to the most recent suggestion(s), I think we have:

• Project Editor (labeled "Project") contains:
  
  
  
  • Instrument Tracks, which contain:
  
  
  • ??? Segments (Was patterns)
  
  
  • Pattern Tracks, which contain:
  
  
  • Patterns (Was BBE-Segments or something ridiculous)
  
  
  • Automation Tracks, which contain:
  
  
  • Automation Segments (Clips, Regions, whatever...)
  
  
• Pattern Editor (labeled "Pattern") contains:
  
  
  
  • Instrument Tracks (dunno if different name is desirable), which contain:
  
  
  • ??? Segments (Distinguish the beat-oriented segments from the note ones)
  
  
  • Automation Tracks -- as described above
  
  
• Piano Roll Editor (label "Piano Roll") contains:
  
  
  
  • Notes and stuff, as stored in the "WTF the Instrument Track Segments are called"
  
  

[tobydox]

I like the proposals by Paul. Anyone wants to take care of implementation? Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow.

[softrabbit]

Should we drop the "FX" from the mixer as well while we're at it? From a user POV it's just simply a mixer.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 05:38 AM, Paul Giblock wrote:

This reminds me. The LMMS source code has a concept of pattern. This
is a "MIDI segment" or "MIDI clip" (not really MIDI, but it is an
event-based note-triggering element). This pattern (a C++ class)
represents both the piano-roll and BB-editor (step-based) note
segments. So, there is still no name for the midi-segment as seen in
either the instrument track or in a "drum track" of the newly named
pattern editor?

According to the most recent suggestion(s), I think we have:

*

Project Editor (labeled "Project") contains:

  o Instrument Tracks, which contain:
      + ??? Segments (Was patterns)
  o Pattern Tracks, which contain:
      + Patterns (Was BBE-Segments or something ridiculous)
  o Automation Tracks, which contain:
      + Automation Segments (Clips, Regions, whatever...)

*

Pattern Editor (labeled "Pattern") contains:

  o Instrument Tracks (dunno if different name is desirable),
    which contain:
      + ??? Segments (Distinguish the beat-oriented segments from
        the note ones)
  o Automation Tracks -- as described above

*

Piano Roll Editor (label "Piano Roll") contains:

  o Notes and stuff, as stored in the "WTF the Instrument Track
    Segments are called"

One should remember that we already have a use for "Project": it refers
to the entire song, all the data in it, including what's in the FX
mixer, etc. Not just what's in the current song editor. We have load,
save, export project. Which again refers to the entire project, not just
the song editor. So calling the song editor "project" could be confusing.

Also, segments? Pass. If we must call the bb-tracks "patterns" (which I
still advise against) then we need a very good and descriptive name for
the instrument track sequences.

[pgiblock]

I know that project is the whole thing, but I still don't mind calling that window the project window. This is the "top level" of the project as far as sequencing is concerned, and even features play/stop/pause buttons that control playback of the project at large. Still: suggestions are welcome.

Regarding "Segments": I'm not attached to the idea. Let me know your suggestions for the different segment types. (Automation clip, versus a chunk of "midi" data, etc..)

Toby: I'll gladly implement this one, but I'd like to wait some more hours for responses.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 03:22 PM, Paul Giblock wrote:

I know that project is the whole thing, but I still don't mind calling
that window the project window. This is the "top level" of the project
as far as sequencing is concerned, and even features play/stop/pause
buttons that control playback of the project at large. Still:
suggestions are welcome.

Regarding "Segments": I'm not attached to the idea. Let me know your
suggestions for the different segment types. (Automation clip, versus
a chunk of "midi" data, etc..)

Toby: I'll gladly implement this one, but I'd like to wait some more
hours for responses.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33221929.

I think we should just call all of them either patterns or sequences.
They have established usage and are used synonymously anyway in many
applications. "Clip" sounds too much like an audio clip, or a part of a
sample track, too confusing. Also "region" has another use, it's often
used for discrete parts of the entire song.

Then we could have: instrument sequences/patterns on instrument tracks,
automation sequences/patterns on automation tracks, and sample tracks
can just have samples or clips or something (because they don't really
contain any sequencing inside them).

[andrewrk]

I am in favor of @pgiblox's proposal.

[pgiblock]

I agree that region sounds like a rigid portion of the song, not a moveable element. I also feel that clip implies an audio snippet. However, if you use pattern to describe these, then we need a name for the Beat+beatline editor and the associated "segments" seen in the song editor.

[bhattigurjot]

@pgiblox seems like a nice proposal.
What if we use "compositions" to define the those 'segments' in the editor?
I mean people usually 'compose' them.

[tresf]

Should we discuss renaming "Sample track" in this thread as well?

I humbly propose "Recorded Track" instead.

-Tres

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 07:07 PM, Gurjot Singh Bhatti wrote:

@pgiblox https://github.com/pgiblox seems like a nice proposal.
What if we use "compositions" to define the those 'segments' in the
editor?
I mean people usually 'compose' them.

"Composition" means a full song or arrangement. Using it to refer to a
mere part of a song/arrangement would be very confusing.

On 01/24/2014 08:51 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Should we discuss renaming "Sample track" in this thread as well?

I humbly propose "Recorded Track" instead.

But they're not always recorded. In fact, as of now, they never are, as
LMMS doesn't support audio recording yet. Sample track or audio track
works fine IMO.

On 01/24/2014 06:54 PM, Paul Giblock wrote:

I agree that region sounds like a rigid portion of the song, not a
moveable element. I also feel that clip implies an audio snippet.
However, if you use pattern to describe these, then we need a name for
the Beat+beatline editor and the associated "segments" seen in the
song editor.

Well, there's two solutions. We can call everything patterns, and then
call bb-track patterns "beat patterns" or "loop patterns", by their
feature of being able to be easily looped over and over, or maybe "group
patterns" by their ability to group several other patterns inside them.
Then we'd have:

Instrument track <- Instrument pattern <- edited in Piano roll
Automation track <- Automation pattern <- edited in Automation editor
Sample|Audio track <- Sample|Clip <- edited in Audacity
Beat|Loop|Group track <- Beat|Loop|Group pattern <- edited in
Beat|Loop|Group editor

Another solution would be to use the word sequence for others, and
pattern for bb - and I personally am not in favour of this, because I
still think patterns are and should be synonymous with sequence, but if
others wanting to distinguish bb-sequences as "patterns", then here's
IMO the best way to do it:

Instrument track <- Instrument sequence <- Piano roll
Automation track <- Automation sequence <- Automation editor
Sample|Audio track <- Sample|Clip <- any external sample editor
Pattern track <- Pattern (sequence) <- Pattern editor

What do you think?

[tresf]

But they're not always recorded. In fact, as of now, they never are, as LMMS doesn't support audio recording yet. Sample track or audio track works fine IMO.

Actually, they almost always are recorded, just with different software.

Recording is already a highly demanded feature, so it would be a name that makes partial sense now, and would make perfect sense later.

-Tres

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 11:27 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

But they're not always recorded. In fact, as of now, they never
are, as LMMS doesn't support audio recording yet. Sample track or
audio track works fine IMO.

Actually, they almost always are recorded, just with different software.

Recording is already a highly demanded feature, so it would be a name
that makes partial sense now, and would make perfect sense later.

You can put any sample files on them, that includes synthesized,
recorded, generated, remixed etc. samples. They don't have to be
recorded. If we're wanting to change the name of beat/bassline tracks
because they can contain more things than beat/basslines, then I don't
see why we should be making the opposite step with sample tracks -
calling them something specific that implies a narrower usage than what
they actually allow.

What's wrong with sample track or audio track?

[tresf]

@diizy, Where is the love? First "loops", now "samples". Sheesh. There's nothing wrong with anything. Keep everything exactly as it is. Sorry to share ideas.

[unfa]

I think "audio track" would even better describe what it is. As opposed to
pattern track or instrument track.

2014/1/24 Vesa V [email protected]

On 01/24/2014 11:27 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

But they're not always recorded. In fact, as of now, they never
are, as LMMS doesn't support audio recording yet. Sample track or
audio track works fine IMO.

Actually, they almost always are recorded, just with different software.

Recording is already a highly demanded feature, so it would be a name
that makes partial sense now, and would make perfect sense later.

You can put any sample files on them, that includes synthesized,
recorded, generated, remixed etc. samples. They don't have to be
recorded. If we're wanting to change the name of beat/bassline tracks
because they can contain more things than beat/basslines, then I don't
see why we should be making the opposite step with sample tracks -
calling them something specific that implies a narrower usage than what
they actually allow.

What's wrong with sample track or audio track?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33263250
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 11:34 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

@diizy https://github.com/diizy, Where is the love? First "loops",
now "samples". Sheesh. There's nothing wrong with anything. Keep
everything exactly as it is. Sorry to share ideas.

Well firstly, "sample" is an established term for a piece of audio data.
It's not a term I (or LMMS developers in the past) made up on the spot
or anything. I also proposed "audio track" as an alternative.

Secondly, I get that we can all be a little bit on edge and things can
get a bit heated when passionate people discuss things they love, but
you're being very passive-aggressive here. Just because I disagree with
this one suggestion of yours doesn't mean I want to keep everything
exactly as they are (one would think that obvious, seeing the amount of
UI changes I've personally made so far), and I've never implied anywhere
that I don't want you sharing ideas. But I should also be allowed to
give my own opinion and feedback about your ideas, otherwise, where's
the free discourse?

If I don't like something, I don't like it and I say it. I accept the
same thing about my contributions, if you don't like something I've
made, you're free to say it and we can then talk about it. Criticizing
your work or ideas is not a comment on your character or a slight
towards you, and I'm sorry if I've made it seem like it is. It's simply
that I don't like that particular idea, and doesn't mean I don't want to
hear your other ideas in the future.

[unfa]

THIS MESSAGE IS STRONGLY OFFTOPIC, PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU'RE SHORT ON TIME

I think we've experienced what happens when a group of people doesn't have
a strong leader present.

If you have some time, I'd like to share some of my thoughts and experience
about working with people:

A group of people works much faster when there's someone who everyone will
agree with, and who stands up to resolve burning debates.
I think Paul did this. Why it works this way? I think that when the
discussion is so stressed, and everyone has a different and strongly
defended opinion - the only way to break the feedback loop is to have
someone from outside make a choice - and the best is if he selects
something not mentioned yet - then everyone "loses" equally and it's easier
to give up the battle.

If you don't mind reading some more deep thoughts - this mechanism reminds
me of a story from the gospel - Jesus (the leader) was away and his
disciples (the group) started to fight over who's the biggest one now (what
is the best name for B+B Editor). Until he returned to recall them that the
are arguing over something irrelevant (both B+B and Song are technically
sequencers, wrote Paul).
Forgive me if I messed up the story.

Another thing it that working in this community makes my refresh something
very true about life. That one of the most needed skill is to handle
conflicts. And it applies not just to LMMS community, it applies to
friends, family, governments, nations.

Some conflicts are not crucial - LMMS will still be LMMS if we change it's
name or color scheme and here we should try find something that satisfies
everyone.
Some conflicts are essensial - LMMS will to not be LMMS if someone forces
to make it a spreadsheet program.
And for such conflits we need truth, faith, will and courage to defend
something that is the only way. If someone comes and says: "Hey I think
LMMS is really cool, but it definitely needs a DMX driving capabilities"...
we should find out if it's going to destroy the project and waste it's
potential - and if it will, we should never let that happen. Same with
family, same with nation, same with every "yourself".

Some choses are just a matter of taste (Rap, Rock or Opera?), and the
others will determine if you're dead or alive.

Good night, and I think the 1.0.0 will blow away the users :D

• unfa
  Plus second thoughts I think I could live with Loop Editor ;)

2014/1/24 Vesa V [email protected]

On 01/24/2014 11:34 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

@diizy https://github.com/diizy, Where is the love? First "loops",

now "samples". Sheesh. There's nothing wrong with anything. Keep
everything exactly as it is. Sorry to share ideas.

Well firstly, "sample" is an established term for a piece of audio data.
It's not a term I (or LMMS developers in the past) made up on the spot
or anything. I also proposed "audio track" as an alternative.

Secondly, I get that we can all be a little bit on edge and things can
get a bit heated when passionate people discuss things they love, but
you're being very passive-aggressive here. Just because I disagree with
this one suggestion of yours doesn't mean I want to keep everything
exactly as they are (one would think that obvious, seeing the amount of
UI changes I've personally made so far), and I've never implied anywhere
that I don't want you sharing ideas. But I should also be allowed to
give my own opinion and feedback about your ideas, otherwise, where's
the free discourse?

If I don't like something, I don't like it and I say it. I accept the
same thing about my contributions, if you don't like something I've
made, you're free to say it and we can then talk about it. Criticizing
your work or ideas is not a comment on your character or a slight
towards you, and I'm sorry if I've made it seem like it is. It's simply
that I don't like that particular idea, and doesn't mean I don't want to
hear your other ideas in the future.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-33265148
.

Tobiasz _unfa_

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[tresf]

@unfa @diizy No worries.

The passion is equally as encouraging as it is frustrating.

These are my arguments:

"Loops"
The music communities that I observe commonly refer to beatmapped samples as "drum loops" or "looped samples". Syntatically, yes, "loop" is a very valid word. (And yes, we also know about FLStudio's origins). IIRC, there is a bassloops folder bundled with LMMS proving this terminology point. If it's any help, Ableton calls these bassloops or drumloops "clips". No, I don't think that helps... I digress.

"Sample"
I strongly feel this is the most accurate but also most meaningless word in a DAW. Ableton calls these "Audio Track", which I feel is equally as generic. Ableton also uses them quite differently and their software has two fully separate interfaces (session and track, I believe) and strictly refer to MIDI as MIDI, so Audio falls into place well in their DAW, since it's the difference between MIDI and ... well, Audio. In LMMS, there's a dedicated folder for "samples" and they are almost never imported as "sample track" so I feel the title of "Sample tracK" is misleading to any and all users. Is it syntatically correct? Sure. I digress again.

@diizy, names get a bit confusing between the mailing list and the bug tracker, so I didn't know Vesa and diizy were the same. This shouldn't matter, but it does and I do appreciate your feedback. :)

[tresf]

Probably the wrong place for this, but has an enhancement been filed to make the B/BL Editors have different tracks (the issue where newcomers delete an intstrument from one and it deletes that instrument from all!) ? :)

[diizy]

On 01/27/2014 06:17 PM, Stéphane THOMAS wrote:

It is basically useful for drums (not for bass…) but not only.

I use it for bass all the time!

[Sti2nd]

@tresf I thought what we were going for was an option to hide the unused instruments and drums in that B&B track. Can't find the ticket now though.

[tresf]

Yes, I wanted a proposal which made each BB Editor unique from eachother
(and instead use clone to make variant copies).

Too many times I've seen newcomers delete an instrument from one BB Editor
no knowing it deleted it from all.

In addition, I think a real win would be to allow in-track alterations.
Copy/paste a pattern would copy that BB Editor's pattern, but clicking a
new area would make a new empty pattern, exactly how the Piano roll works,
but for an entire BB Editor pattern.

The first I think is of higher importance. The second is probably much
more difficult to code.

I don't think these ever made it into an enhancement request. I'll open
one tonight.

-Tres

• Tres.[email protected]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Stian Jørgensrud
[email protected]:

@tresf https://github.com/tresf I thought what we were going for was an
option to hide the unused instruments and drums in that B&B track. Can't
find the ticket now though.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-37589984
.

[diizy]

On 03/14/2014 12:44 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Yes, I wanted a proposal which made each BB Editor unique from eachother
(and instead use clone to make variant copies).

Too many times I've seen newcomers delete an instrument from one BB
Editor
no knowing it deleted it from all.

Newbies make silly mistakes. That's how they learn.

What exactly do you mean by making "each BB editor unique"? There's only
one BB-editor...

In addition, I think a real win would be to allow in-track alterations.
Copy/paste a pattern would copy that BB Editor's pattern, but clicking a
new area would make a new empty pattern, exactly how the Piano roll
works,
but for an entire BB Editor pattern.

You want to make BB patterns behave the same way as instrument patterns?
Then what's the point in BB-patterns?

[tresf]

Rather than elaborating in email, I'll draw a mockup a bit later and link
it. It will make a lot more sense once I spell it out. I'll file two
separate enhancements as to allow proper feedback on each.

[tresf]

@Sti2nd, @diizy, opened #453

[tresf]

@Sti2nd, @diizy, opened #454

[Sti2nd]

I made up my mind. I disagree with all of you. In Song Editor the segments are called segments, and in the Beat and Bassline Editor the steps are called steps. So if the BB Editor would have a new name it would be Step Editor

[musikBear]

... before changes.... Think of how many who already _knows_ the current names -Of
_all the questions and answers in the forum
*All videos
*Whole wiki
*the fact that even us old dogs suddentlu have to think different... :p_
I will pull the republcan standpoint in this -Changes? no thank you :dart:
I think the only thing 'wrong' with the name Beat-and-Bass-editor, beside being long :p ,is that bass-lines almost never should be build in .. yes you know, ..but pro/cons.. I really dont think the pro weights nearly as much as the con in this case. Renaming will create absurdly confusion
That aside - this project needs a locked nomenclature for _everything_. That is beyound doubt.
But component renaming - no thank you

[diizy]

I stand by my stance that "pattern editor" is not a good name since we
already have "patterns": instrument tracks have patterns in them. Piano
roll edits patterns.

[Sti2nd]

Well according to the wiki the boxes in Song Editor could also be called segments... Actually there are no patterns... So we have elements, patterns, bricks, blocks, boxes which aren't present in LMMS at all? I think it is confusing to use patterns because it could be both BB and Song Editor patterns, thus I suggest sticking to segments and steps.

[unfa]

On 13 Mar 2014 23:44, "Tres Finocchiaro" [email protected] wrote:

Yes, I wanted a proposal which made each BB Editor unique from eachother
(and instead use clone to make variant copies).

Too many times I've seen newcomers delete an instrument from one BB
Editor
no knowing it deleted it from all.

I'm afraid this would make life a lot harder, if we actually wanted to
delete a B+B instrument, we'd have to delete it 20 times for 20 patterns?
This would also require more memory and disk space, and a logical next step
would be to make adding new instruments to B+B editor equally hard. I don't
see any real benefits. I think it would make the work really messy. I like
B+B because I can add a few instruments and program a lot of sequences
using any of these instruments.

I think muting is working great with this.

In addition, I think a real win would be to allow in-track alterations.
Copy/paste a pattern would copy that BB Editor's pattern, but clicking a
new area would make a new empty pattern, exactly how the Piano roll
works,
but for an entire BB Editor pattern.

The first I think is of higher importance. The second is probably much
more difficult to code.

I don't think these ever made it into an enhancement request. I'll open
one tonight.

-Tres

• Tres.[email protected]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Stian Jørgensrud
[email protected]:

@tresf https://github.com/tresf I thought what we were going for was
an
option to hide the unused instruments and drums in that B&B track.
Can't
find the ticket now though.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-37589984>
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[Umcaruje]

So is the name change gonna happen? This issue kinda died and there was no conclusion.

[diizy]

Pretty much the same thing as with the LMMS name issue... never got to
any consensus on what the names should be.

[Sti2nd]

Support from me and Uros to rename to Pattern Editor. @Umcaruje Step Editor is also accepted from me.

[diizy]

On 07/22/2014 09:09 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

Support from me and Uros to rename to Pattern Editor.

Against it. "Pattern" is too ambiguous, and already used to refer to
TCO's (instrument patterns, automation patterns). Reserving the name
"pattern" for only bb-tracks would go against established semantics...

[SecondFlight]

Why don't we just have a good old-fashioned straw poll?

http://strawpoll.me/2170159

[Sti2nd]

@diizy Problem is no one agrees on that we are calling it Song Editor patterns either. I call them segments as the wiki. Some call them clips from FL, Ableton, Ardour and Bitwig.

[diizy]

On 07/22/2014 09:33 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

@diizy https://github.com/diizy Problem is no one agrees on that we
are calling it Song Editor patterns either.

How do you figure?

I call them segments as the wiki. Some call them clips from FL.

Why do you call them segments when that's not used anywhere in the software?

Anyway the main issue here is, that we can't just go changing one part
of the nomenclature. If we want to change the names of things, then we
should come up with a consistent naming scheme and convention which
would be applied accross the software, in all documentation and source
code. This suggestion is therefore sort of starting from the wrong
end... putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

Before that we should also consider the overall cost/benefit of changing
the names of things when people are used to them being what they are.
Are the changes really needed badly enough to warrant the confusion?

[Sti2nd]

To decide on ONE name for patterns/clips/segments/elements/blocks/steps is needed. It will save us more time than letting people come up with more alternatives. And don't blame me for the segments, I learned it from the wiki, I had nothing to do with it. Yes, if we decide on one name for these things, everyone must follow it.

[diizy]

On 07/22/2014 09:56 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

To decide on ONE name for
patterns/clips/segments/elements/blocks/steps is needed. It will save
us more time than letting people come up with more alternatives.

Not only patterns, but same also applies to all nomenclature used in the
software. All should be consistent at least internally.

That also means that if we change the term "pattern" to something else,
then bb-patterns would also need to be consistent with the new
nomenclature. Which would also affect the naming of the bb-editor...

[Sti2nd]

Yes, now you have got it @diizy . So you can't be sure that if we decide on naming those blocks in our software, that the B+B Editor won't be getting a new name, cause perhaps is patterns the new steps.

[diizy]

On 07/22/2014 10:40 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

So you can't be sure that if we decide on naming those blocks in our
software, that the B+B Editor won't be getting a new name, cause
perhaps is patterns the new steps.

Uh. What? Can you rephrase that...

[Sti2nd]

Ehh. I kind of thought wrong, I was only trying to explain that you were getting it correctly... :smile: What I is important is to settle on names for the TCO's in Song Editor, the B+B blocks in Song Editor, and the green dots in the B+B Editor. Do you also think this is the right end to start with?

Voting (with that strawpoll site) is a fairly good solution, but then we expect people to have read and remember all the information about the different alternatives. I, for example, just changed my opinion on this matter because I again got information I had forgotten or didn't understand at the time. Maybe we should go the parliament way? Produce an informative document with all the different alternatives listed with facts and logic behind the names, which everyone must read! It would be as simple as putting a secret code in the document for readers to copy/paste after they have finished reading, and then submitting their one vote. Sounds easy enough?

"How do you figure?" - Diizy. Skype group with a ton of LMMS producers, some of them use other software too like FL, Bitwig, Reaper and Ardour. Do you want to join?

[diizy]

On 07/23/2014 12:25 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

Ehh. I kind of thought wrong, I was only trying to explain that you
were getting it correctly... :smile: What I is important is to settle
on names for the TCO's in Song Editor, the B+B blocks in Song Editor,
and the green dots in the B+B Editor. Do you also think this is the
right end to start with?

If we come up with an umbrella term for all TCOs then it needs to be
consistent for all TCOs. For instance, we can't call instrument patterns
"patterns" but then call bb-patterns "sequences"... the nomenclature
needs to be consistent.

The intervals in the bb-editor are "steps" and I don't see any reason to
change that... it's a pretty well-established term for step sequencers.

Voting (with that strawpoll site) is a fairly good solution, but then
we expect people to have read and remember all the information about
the different alternatives. I, for example, just changed my opinion on
this matter because I again got information I had forgotten or didn't
understand at the time. Maybe we should go the parliament way? Produce
an informative document with all the different alternatives listed
with facts and logic behind the names, which everyone must read! It
would be as simple as putting a secret code in the document for
readers to copy/paste after they have finished reading, and then
submitting their one vote. Sounds easy enough?

I think we rather need some good planning and discussion on the mailing
list, it's way too early to even consider voting about anything.

"How do you figure?" - Diizy. Skype group with a ton of LMMS
producers, some of them use other software too like FL, Bitwig, Reaper
and Ardour. Do you want to join?

No, I don't use Skype. Goes against principles...

[HDDigitizerMusic]

I think pattern editor is our best option.

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Vesa V [email protected] wrote:

On 07/23/2014 12:25 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

Ehh. I kind of thought wrong, I was only trying to explain that you
were getting it correctly... :smile: What I is important is to settle

on names for the TCO's in Song Editor, the B+B blocks in Song Editor,
and the green dots in the B+B Editor. Do you also think this is the
right end to start with?

If we come up with an umbrella term for all TCOs then it needs to be
consistent for all TCOs. For instance, we can't call instrument patterns
"patterns" but then call bb-patterns "sequences"... the nomenclature
needs to be consistent.

The intervals in the bb-editor are "steps" and I don't see any reason to
change that... it's a pretty well-established term for step sequencers.

Voting (with that strawpoll site) is a fairly good solution, but then
we expect people to have read and remember all the information about
the different alternatives. I, for example, just changed my opinion on
this matter because I again got information I had forgotten or didn't
understand at the time. Maybe we should go the parliament way? Produce
an informative document with all the different alternatives listed
with facts and logic behind the names, which everyone must read! It
would be as simple as putting a secret code in the document for
readers to copy/paste after they have finished reading, and then
submitting their one vote. Sounds easy enough?

I think we rather need some good planning and discussion on the mailing
list, it's way too early to even consider voting about anything.

"How do you figure?" - Diizy. Skype group with a ton of LMMS
producers, some of them use other software too like FL, Bitwig, Reaper
and Ardour. Do you want to join?

No, I don't use Skype. Goes against principles...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-49805588.

Digitizer out.

[diizy]

On 07/23/2014 04:06 AM, Digitizer wrote:

I think pattern editor is our best option.

Refer to previous discussion... we can't just change one part of the
nomenclature without revising all (most) of it. The naming must be
consistent...

[musikBear]

aside what name is finally chosen, higher up dizzy said something serious important:

Not only patterns, but same also applies to all nomenclature used in the software.

a consistent _total nomenclature_, for the software. A list of names that all must use for all components. Get rid of the ambigioness and 'force' everyone to use the same names for all components, once and for all.
Gues a set of pictures, with numbered components, and a list reference would be the right way to go, but what say ye ?

[Sti2nd]

@HDDigitizerMusic So you call the steps in the B+B Editor for patterns?

@diizy I would be perfectly fine in calling instrument TCO's for clips and B+B TCO's for patterns/something else. They are different, so it could make sense.

[diizy]

On 07/23/2014 02:36 PM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

@diizy https://github.com/diizy I would be perfectly fine in calling
instrument TCO's for clips and B+B TCO's for patterns/something else.
They are different, so it could make sense.

There still needs to be a generic name for TCO's, and the names of TCO's
and other things should then be consistent with it. No naming conflicts.

[Sti2nd]

@diizy So you prefer one name for all TCO's? I prefer to call it after what I see. I can understand that for a developer B+B blocks and instrument blocks is very much the same.

[StakeoutPunch]

My opinions on names:
First off, the name for TCO's: Clips.
Instrument clips, automation clips, sample clips, pattern clips. They all flow well enough and don't feel redundant. They technically _are_ clips of arranged data in the song editor, after all.

Song Editor: No change
Song editor is clear and concise. It is where you arrange _clips_ from different things to create your song.

B+B: Pattern Editor
With TCO's now called _clips_ this allows the B+B to be called the Pattern Editor. In the Song Editor they are simply called _Pattern Clips_. As for the unit, _Steps_ work fine. You'd have steps in a pattern, it makes sense. Instead of calling patterns "Beat/Bassline #" they would be called _Pattern Clip #_

Piano Roll: No change
It is an industry standard to call the note sequencer grid the piano roll. When no clip is selected it will say such instead of no pattern selected.

Automation Editor: No change
But same as the piano roll, when it is not focused it will say clip instead of pattern.

FX-Mixer: Mixer
Duh. It's a mixer.

Pardon if I missed anything, it's late for me.

[diizy]

On 07/25/2014 01:44 AM, Stian Jørgensrud wrote:

@diizy https://github.com/diizy So you prefer one name for all
TCO's? I prefer to call it after what I see. I can understand that for
a developer B+B blocks and instrument blocks is very much the same.

No, but there must be a generic name for TCO's, even if it's not used
(exactly) for all different TCO's.

[diizy]

On 07/25/2014 08:12 AM, StakeoutPunch wrote:

My opinions on names:
_First off, the name for TCO's: Clips._
Instrument clips, automation clips, sample clips, pattern clips. '

"Pattern clips" seems way too clunky. It's like calling them "sequence
patterns"...

Furthermore, "clips" usually refer to sample data, AFAIK.

They all flow well enough and don't feel redundant. They technically
/are/ clips of arranged data in the song editor, after all.

_Song Editor: No change_
Song editor is clear and concise. It is where you arrange /clips/ from
different things to create your song.

_B+B: Pattern Editor_
With TCO's now called /clips/ this allows the B+B to be called the
Pattern Editor. In the Song Editor they are simply called /Pattern
Clips/. As for the unit, /Steps/ work fine. You'd have steps in a
pattern, it makes sense. Instead of calling patterns "Beat/Bassline #"
they would be called /Pattern Clip #/

//

Don't really see it working...

[musikBear]

(( i lost it at TCO
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/TCO.html
Plans to have royaltees on individual clips? :P ))
Funny, for some reason i suddently remembered a story about Stalin and Hitler deciding how to share a whipcream-strawberry-pie.. messy stuff.. messy
Nomenclature... -Think wiki, videos, manuals, known knowledge, facebook, and fing twitter
The _less_ changed, the **less the confusion
uhoh.. i often refered to 'them' as _containers_ -note-containers, because they contained notes.. :package:
sorry .. :¤

[tresf]

Figured I'd chime in...

I see the "Song Editor" as the main "Sequence Editor" and all BB-Editors as simply children or "Groups" of "Sequence Editors". Here's a visual.

The "blocks" for groups are just "blocks" since they open the group, not an editor. The rest are sequence editors specific to their roll. Please correct any mistakes freely. :)

[diizy]

On 07/25/2014 05:02 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Figured I'd chime in...

I see the "Song Editor" as the main "Sequence Editor" and all
BB-Editors as simply children or "Groups" of "Sequence Editors".

This isn't an exactly accurate metaphor though, since the tracks in the
bb-editor are shared, and only the TCO's differ between bb-tracks.

Also, calling them "groups" would conflict with the planned "group
track" feature...

[tresf]

the tracks in the bb-editor are shared

Right and although this makes sense programatically, in my opinion, it does't really offer a intuitive workflow, hence #453 and #454.

Please mind that I'm not trying to minimize the work involved in any of this, but rather stating what I believe to be an idealistic interface, possible or not.

calling them "groups" would conflict with the planned "group track" feature...

Yes, absolutely, although conceptually (assuming #453 and #454) they end up offering very similar functions to one's workflow.

[Sti2nd]

I like what @StakeoutPunch said. +1 Do you also think that Step Editor would work?

[grejppi]

If an 'audio clip' contains some audio, then it should be obvious that an 'automation clip' would contain automation, and a 'note clip' would contain notes. It's a common term used by many DAWs already.

'Pattern' implies something that can be looped, and currently that is possible for B&B tracks only. But looping isn't their sole purpose; therefore I think it's better than 'loop'.

[StakeoutPunch]

@diizy
clip
_noun

1. A device, typically flexible or worked by a spring, for holding an object or objects together or in place._

By it's very definition I don't see why clip is _not_ appropriate as a name. This isn't about what other DAWs call things as they often have different names anyways. This is LMMS we are talking about here, not Ableton or FLs.

Instead of seeing why it wouldn't work, maybe try seeing how it would?

@grejppi has the same idea as me, the term is intuitive and makes sense logically paired with what sort of data the clip contains.

[diizy]

On 07/26/2014 03:43 AM, StakeoutPunch wrote:
//

By it's very definition I don't see why clip is /not/

Yes well, if you don't listen to anyone else's opinion than your own,
then you're not likely to see the validity in any opposing viewpoint.

As for clip: It's a foreign term to LMMS, it's not something that has
ever been used in any part of LMMS. It just doesn't seem to fit the
existing terminology, clashes too much. I don't really see it fitting
the software. Personally I think "sequence" would work better.

Similarly, I don't really see "pattern" as a good name for bb-tracks.
Pattern is in many software, particularly tracker softwares, used to
refer to pieces of instrument data (notes). We already also call
instrument track TCO's patterns so it's established usage for us. I
don't really feel comfortable with using "pattern" in this context, as
it'd be likely to cause confusion for anyone who is used to the old
meaning of the word.

I think we can all think about this together and find some better
alternatives.

[tresf]

I tend to agree that the definition of clip referenced above by Stian is
without the context of audio added.

"Sound clip" reuses the verb definition of "clip" (rather than noun) to add
an inconvenient shortening action to it. In audio and multimedia in
general, clipping isn't a paper clip, it's scissors.

I love this conversation so I want to refrain from saying "no" as I want to
keep seeing the ideas being proposed. :)

[HDDigitizerMusic]

I think we want something commonly used and recognizable to any electronic producer. Something when you see its name, you know what it is. I've been researching (googling) the different terms and it seems to me by the results that Step Sequencer is the most common term for what we're talking about.

Beat+Bassline Editor only comes up with LMMS and I think can confuse people. What if you didn't want to just use it for beats and basslines? Pattern Editor (the name I thought we should go with.) doesn't really come up with nearly as much as Step Sequencer.

Step Sequencer is what its commonly called in FL Studio:

... and Sonar:

I think we would want to change Song Editor to Sequencer for consistency if we went with this.

[Sti2nd]

Continued discussion on devel mailing list http://linux-multimedia-studio-lmms.996328.n3.nabble.com/Rename-quot-Beat-Bassline-Editor-quot-to-quot-Pattern-Editor-quot-120-td9767.html

[HDDigitizerMusic]

@Sti2nd Are we switching to a different forum to discuss this? GitHub works fine for me. :)

[Sti2nd]

We are switching because this isn't meant to be a forum. It is meant for developers to upload code, see bugs and other things I don't even know. Why, because the devs get a notification for every message in this discussion, and diiz (developer) asked if we could discuss on the mailing list instead :)

[HDDigitizerMusic]

Thanks. That clears everything up for me.

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Stian Jørgensrud [email protected]
wrote:

We are switching because this isn't meant to be a forum. It is meant for
developers to upload code, see bugs and other things I don't even know.
Why, because the devs get a notification for every message in this
discussion, and diiz (developer) asked if we could discuss on the mailing
list instead :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-50267385.

Digitizer out.

[StakeoutPunch]

@diizy "Yes well, if you don't listen to anyone else's opinion than your own,
then you're not likely to see the validity in any opposing viewpoint."

I want to like you because of all the work you _do_ do, but snide shots like that really make it hard to. I could have said the same thing earlier about you. Have you noticed that most of your posts in this ticket are you saying why things "don't work," with only a few not based in your own opinion?

It's whatever, I don't see this renaming ever working out anyways so long as there are any opinions.

[Sti2nd]

Opinions are good. Everyone doesn't have to agree to make a decision. Only if there are quite a few against the name change we should drop the discussion, but it seems like most are for name change.

[tresf]

I'd like to resurrect this thread too. Most were in favor of changing it back in January 2014 but we got stuck on picking a good title.

[StakeoutPunch]

I still believe that what I suggested in this comment would be a good fit.

"Sound clip" reuses the verb definition of "clip" (rather than noun) to add
an inconvenient shortening action to it. In audio and multimedia in
general, clipping isn't a paper clip, it's scissors.

"Clip" as a noun generally refers to a segment of something, and within the context of what "clip" is appended to it is straight forward to see "sound clip" as a segment of sound. A newspaper clip is a segment out of a newspaper, sort of like these clips will be smaller parts of the song as a whole.
-Poncho

[Wallacoloo]

Let's get quantitative. Can we create a poll, "What should the editors be renamed to in LMMS 1.3?" with the various suggestions from this thread & then get actual numbers on what the users & devs want? Facebook provides a platform for this. Maybe our forum software does as well?

[eagles051387]

Colin there is also google survey and survey monkey these can be done on as
well. If you use facebook you are leaving out users who do not have a
facebook account.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Colin Wallace [email protected]
wrote:

Let's get quantitative. Can we create a poll, "What should the editors be
renamed to in LMMS 1.3?" with the various suggestions from this thread &
then get actual numbers on what the users & devs want? Facebook provides a
platform for this. Maybe our forum software does as well?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/issues/120#issuecomment-135926299.

Jonathan Aquilina

[musikBear]

...and once again NO should be an selectable option in any poll
NO is my vote -The amount of 'noise' confusion and pure nonsense any renaming will create, will be so so tiresome.
You should not rename important parts of anything as old and well known as lmms - my bend molded cent is spend now :p

[tresf]

...and once again NO should be an selectable option in any poll
NO is my vote -The amount of 'noise' confusion and pure nonsense any renaming will create, will be so so tiresome.
You should not rename important parts of anything as old and well known as lmms - my bend molded cent is spend now :p

Says the person who refuses to upgrade from Windows XP. :)

My vote stays the same, "Pattern Editor" is better than "Beat / Bassline Editor" but I'm open to better suggestions.

I'm against a Facebook poll on this, I think facebook is better left for polling for features rather than barely noticeable cosmetic items, but if someone wants access, just ping myself or @Umcaruje privately and we can grant access.

-Tres

[iansannar]

Lemme know when the poll is up. If there is a poll.

[tresf]

@cubician where have you been? :)

Are you interested in running it for us?

[ghost]

I know this thread is super old, but, as a newcomer to LMMS, I think this very much still needs to happen because I was at first completely unaware of the fact that you can put melodies and stuff in the BB editor via the piano roll, not just beat patterns. This was in part due to the UI not making it obvious that you can access the piano roll, but also due to the name. I second "pattern editor".

[filostrato]

Another vote for calling it "Pattern editor" from me; way more universal than the current name.

[nihilazo]

another vote from me.

[tresf]

Some technical problems with this...

• The word "Pattern" is ambiguous in the codebase. e.g. It can refer to a PianoRoll Segment, it can refer to an Automation Segment.
  
  
  
  • For example, the enum type PlayModes -> Mode_PlayPattern already exists so we can't rename Mode_PlayBB yet. We need to give this a better name, such as PlayModes -> Mode_PlaySegment or more accurately PlayModes -> Mode_PlayPianoRoll. Note that not all Patterns are piano rolls, however this enum seems to only control the playback of piano rolls, so perhaps it's name was just poorly picked. Case-and-point, you can't playback an automation pattern without the Song Editor, so there's no "Play Mode" for an Automation Pattern. Confusing? Yeah.
  
  
  • Pattern.h would otherwise have nothing to do with PatternEditor.h, so this is another namespace problem/confusing unless we continue to rename. We can namespace it Segment.h but that might be more confusing. Sharing thoughts is important here.
  
  
  • To that point, most editors are now PatternEditors because they edit what we've historically called a Pattern. Does this make the PianoRollEditor a PianoSegmentEditor and the AutomationEditor an AutomationSegmentEditor?
  
  

If you're nodding your head saying "Yeah, a Pattern should be renamed Segment", then Step 1 is renaming Pattern to Segment and must come before the "BB" renames or else we'll get lost.

[tresf]

Over on Discord, @lukas-w made an important observation and that's that the ambiguous use of Pattern is even more confusing because AutomationPattern is not a subclass of Pattern, but rather they're siblings that are subclasses of TrackContentObject. Refactoring TCO is now the first step.

[Spekular]

It might make sense then to call automation/instrument/bb patterns in the
song editor something else. "Clip" is used in some DAWs I think? Perhaps
this (or whatever other new name is decided on) could be used in the
codebase as well.

[tresf]

@Spekular Clip seems to be the winner.

So.... Clip.h gives birth to NoteClip.h, AutomationClip.h, PatternClip.h, SampleClip.h. This will touch most of the source files, making syncing from stable-1.2 harder. Will see if an IDE can help with the refactoring and go from there.

Alternate proposals are MidiClip.h, AutomationClip.h, PatternClip.h, AudioClip.h

[vlad0337187]

Totally agree to rename it to "Pattern Editor" =)

[claell]

The word "Pattern" is ambiguous in the codebase. e.g. It can refer to a PianoRoll Segment, it can refer to an Automation Segment.

Will this be an issue, when only using Pattern Editor?

Refactoring TCO is now the first step.

Is there an issue for that that can be linked? Also I suggest to add a label stating that this is awaiting another issue to be fixed first.

[russiankumar]

Sorry to be dropping on this dead issue, but I feel like even now this is a nice change to have, and it would be much more friendly for newcomers to LMMS (as Pattern Editor is a more standard name, and Beat+Bassline may seem to some as if only drums and basslines can be edited here). Judging by this conversation there's a lot of changes to be made which definitely can't happen in one PR. Can we break down this into a step-by-step rename (one PR per step), maybe like so:

1. Rename AutomationPattern -> AutomationClip
2. Rename Pattern -> Clip (or whatever else may be decided)
3. Rename BBPattern -> Pattern
4. Rename editors

List needs refinement, and this one is probably bs, but something like this so that this change can actually be executed finally.

Or if this change is not going to happen, maybe close the issue along with an explanation why it won't be?

[tresf]

Or if this change is not going to happen

It'll happen and we welcome the change. Previous attempts were mostly superficial making the code a bit harder to read, but your breakdown of it is exactly it needs to be done.

Feel free to open a brand new bug report and have this one closed if needed. If you're going to refactor many components, it will probably serve as a better bug report than simply "The titles says it all." like this one. 🤣

Furthemore, thanks for offering. The project can't survive without the hard work from people like you. 👏

Last, this will be a sweeping change, so it has the tendency to break other PRs, so thanks in advance for the patience.

[russiankumar]

Feel free to open a brand new bug report and have this one closed if needed.

Nah, I think I'll stick to this one. There's a satisfying feeling closing a six year old issue when it's already solved rather than just renewing it. Don't know, just my preference honestly xD. Though if you prefer convenience, I can open a new bug report.

it has the tendency to break other PRs

Oh I can see the wave of disappointed developers coming my way for this :D
I think active PRs need to be finalised and merged before this, and we need to warn developers that a major change is coming. Or we can make a new branch and rename everything there. That seems like a nice way to do it, although the merge conflict mess will be a headache.

Anyways, glad to be helping!

[Veratil]

If we're going to rename files, let's please organize them better, too.

[tresf]

I think active PRs need to be finalised and merged before this, and we need to warn developers that a major change is coming. Or we can make a new branch and rename everything there.

There's a style one that @JohannesLorenz was waiting to merge. That's the first that comes to mind. Also, your very nice color PR (thanks!). Anything stale gets punished for going stale. At some point, people have to rebase and rewrite stuff. To quote my mother cleaning a room...

"it's going to get worse before it gets better"

To reference a time when a large sweeping change occurred: https://github.com/LMMS/lmms/pull/1353

The conversations that occurred then will occur again for eternity. ❤️

[russiankumar]

@Veratil, any suggestions? I’ve got no idea on how to go about reorganising myself.

@tresf,

Anything stale gets punished for going stale.

Well said. Cuts off some nice features (like that Toolbar PR) but then again not like they were going to merge soon.

I guess we’ll let my color PRs and Johannes’ PR merge (and any other non-stale ones), and then start working on this. I suppose that nobody will be able to make a stable PR at this time, as everything will be moving around and getting renamed.

Also, rough plan which we can elaborate on:

1. Reorganise everything to better places
2. Rename files themselves and update everything that broke (#include, cmake etc)
3. Rename classes and variables and etc one by one
4. Rename the editors

[tresf]

Cuts off some nice features

Exactly. Most PRs are great btw, some just aren't as obviously great. I'm an offender of stale PRs as are many other devs. It's just part of the job and most devs are sympathetic to this.

[Veratil]

@Veratil, any suggestions? I’ve got no idea on how to go about reorganising myself.

I'll have a look around and come back with one. 👍

[russiankumar]

You know what, I think a new issue would be better for this. Not exactly easy navigating through this huge discussion. In case somebody has something to say later on, we could point them back here I guess. Will create a new issue soon for better organisation.

[russiankumar]

Closing this in favor of #5592.