[gmpi] Re: NAMM follow-up, some major decisions to make

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 03:11:40AM +0100, Didier Dambrin wrote:
> Yes it's exactly what I was saying.
>
> To which I was replied 'let's not get back on the subject', meaning
> that
> GMPI is already locked before even being used?
>
> But note that it's just an opinion because I do agree I didn't
> participate
> in this thing, wasn't at namm & shouldn't really have a word to say.

As a host developer, I *want* you and others to have a word to say.  I
think we've already reached a good compromise on the requirements, and
you won't be too unhappy with it.  I think it's a win-win compromise.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: