Fix loop condition in project rendering (#3105, #2030)#3576
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
Numerator automation fixed, but I don't know nothing about second issue. |
Umcaruje
approved these changes
May 29, 2017
Umcaruje
left a comment
Umcaruje
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tested this with all 3 export modes and it works perfectly 👍
Contributor
Then I suggest merging this. 🚜 |
Member
|
👍 |
Member
|
Thank you for your contribution @PhysSong ! |
PhysSong
added a commit
to PhysSong/lmms
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2017
PhysSong
added a commit
to PhysSong/lmms
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 8, 2017
sdasda7777
pushed a commit
to sdasda7777/lmms
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix loop condition in ProjectRenderer::run().
It fixes #2030 clearly.
@DeRobyJ Could you test this for #3105?
Based on #3105 (comment)
(The idea from @softrabbit)