End of Life plan for 3.x ?

I see. I understood that the your forked project is centered on code repositry.
I also understood that I need to build it myself to get an executable binary for the time being.

I have some question.

0.
For convenience, I think the your repository/branch may need a unique and easy-to-call name.
For example, like "FRJ (forked repository by Jojo)" or "FCJ (bugfix collection by Jojo)".
Do you have already any idea?

1.
Where is the issue tracker for that repository/branch ?

2.
May I distribute the executable file I built for testing purposes?
Especially, to Japanese users.

I like MuseScore Classic. No idea whether it would be allowed, probably needs either a lawyer, or an official 'blessing' from MuseScore staff

While the code itself is open under the GPL, probably the name MuseScore is a trademark so using it within a compound might be troublesome without the main MuseScore team (or Muse) blessing

That's why I rely on the CI actions set up for the MuseScore repository for PRs, here for https://github.com/musescore/MuseScore/pull/9000

I was just looking for an easy upgrade path. I am not familiar with CIs, PRs and nightly builds but will try to figure out what to do with Jojo's mention of using bin/musescore4.exe to update my 3.6.2 installation. Perhaps there are detailed instructions on Github somewhere.

This idea is OK. There's no need to start a new site now. It would get a long time to attract users. Keeping the information and talks at musescore.org and github is enough. And keeping Musescore classic side by side woth Musescore 4 is also enough. Users could jump from one version to another without as needed. In my case, I write many things in 3.6 and when I need a feature of 4.0 I "save as" my score with a new name and go on in 4.0. At the end it is just a matter of mixing the audio results in a DAW.

It'll be Evolution then

Just going by my own experience. If said friends and colleagues ask me, all I can do is give them the benefit of my experience. They're welcome to consult other sources of info. I tout the orchestral sounds of 4.1, in case that's important to them. But honestly, for me 4.x has been a distraction and a drain on productivity so far. I'm looking forward to future versions, but for now 3.63 ( - 3.7) meets my needs and enables me to churn out the scores and arrangements my bands need.

Again, the title of this thread is "End of life plan for 3.x", not "information about third-party fork of MuseScore 3". The end of life plan for 3.x is exactly this: MuseScore 4 replaces it. So pointing that out is not even the slightest bit off-topic.

If you want to discourage others from spreading misinformation about MuseScore 4 in that this thread, be my guest.

But if people spread misinformation in this or any other thread, it will be countered. And you're right - my initial response should have been enough. It's not my fault people continued to argue against the obvious facts.

So again, do NOT report posts as spam that are merely correcting misinformation. The misinformation itself wasn't even spam; it was merely misguided.

One more, to be perfectly clear: DO NOT report posts as spam when they are not.

And don't get on my case for "cluttering" this thread. You are the one who started this pointless digression by inappropriately flagging posts as spam. I have no intention of responding further here unless you or someone else spreads further information or takes further inappropriate action. The ball is in your court; I suggest you act by not acting.

Hear hear.

Agreed. I will inevitably, and gladly, move from 3.7 to 4 when it has a PRE with plugin API access. I look forward to that day but am grateful for the development and usefulness of 3.7 in the meantime.

The damage of the misinformation and malicious attacks is not to MU4 itself, but to the community. It creates confusion in the eyes of new users who are erroneously led to believe there is some actual sound reason for them not to choose MuseScore - or worse, to choose an older unsupported version just because some small percentage of existing users need to use that older version for whatever reason. Which leads to people missing out on the better experience that they could be having - better layout, better playback, better usability - and creating an unnecessary extra learning curve when they do finally update. It also creates an environment where scores cannot be shared as freely due to compatibility concerns. because the FUD is causing both new users not to adopt MU4 and existing users who have no reason whatsoever not to update to continue using MU3 unnecessarily. And so on.

So once again, nothing wrong if some particular MU3 user who has carefully compared decides that some specific feature of MU3 is more important for their specific use case than all the new features and improvements in MU4 combined, But it's a problem when statements are made that are designed to do nothing but discourage innocent new users from getting the latest and greatest version of MuseScore.

And it's a huge problem when one commits personal abuse by reporting on-topic informational posts from a long-time contributor to this forum and to the software itself as spam. That was inexcusable, and what I expect to see here is people soundly condemning the perpetrator. The fact I don't is quite disappointing - even more damaging to the community than the misinformation.

I think it is cause of SoundFont you use.
In the specification of SoundFont 2.04, there is the following sentence.

> Thus dwStart must be less than dwStartloop-7, dwStartloop must be less than dwEndloop-31, and dwEndloop must be less than dwEnd-7.

In SoundFont you using:
endloop(12659)
end(12666)
->
12666-7 = 12659. the 'endloop' value is 'equal' not 'less than'.
The 'end' value is only slightly smaller, so MuseScore may have showed a warning instead of an error.