ronso0

> If there are no other suggestions I would squash the PRs. As I explained earlier, let's do this when merging after the final LGTM I'll take another look at...

@Swiftb0y Do you want to take another look? I didn't do an deep code review, just a skimmed through..

Indeed. Implementing the option as cla makes it less discoverable for 'regular users' who look for a way to hook up lighting to Mixxx. I think putting a checkbox into...

Yes, that was my last statement there. But various support requests on the forums from less tech-savvy users made me change my mind. IMO this option needs to be accessible...

@eddsalkield Btw, thanks for your first contribution : ) Please sign the [contributor agreement](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScC9QG327sjLL0eWftmfGUasxFFLxg6LCXJ2xHDYRzFIRqyiw/viewform?formkey=dEpYN2NkVEFnWWQzbkFfM0ZYYUZ5X2c6MQ) and comment here when done. Thank you!

@eddsalkield Any news on this? I think this would be an appreciated feature. Are you motivated to work on the checkbox implementation?

more to come, after start the EQ boxes are still accessible even though "Bypass EQs" is checked (toggling it off and on again _does_ de/activate comboboxes)

I know, I'm already looking into the differences 2.3/main. Until now it's only moving lines around in the initialisation, so conflicts seem manageable.

Unfortunately, this pref page is a bit of a mess, fixing one bug introduced another regression and so on. There are places where config vaules are set based on checkbox...

Well, after all we'll still have to deal with those dialogs for some time. I already touched it and poked around to find out what's wrong -- _that_ time would...