Re: [Banshee-List] The dumbest error in Banshee

["Andres G. Aragoneses" <knocte gmail com>]

On 11/23/2011 03:26 AM, Martin G wrote:
> Banshee users,
>
> I'm sorry, I know it's considered ungrateful to complain about free
> software. However, I simply can't restrain my disappointment and
> bafflement that this completely unneccessary and pointless error
> continues to exist.
>
> Podcasts are marked read only, causing them to not be able to be
> transferred to remote devices.
>
> This bug has already been reported: here:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631987
>
> In that bug report, someone points out that "Podcast files are marked
> read-only by design." Then it follows on with some complicated
> explanation of why.
>
> Which completely misses the point. Whether they are read only or not
> is completely irrelevant.
>
> The point is that whatever system Banshee uses to manage its files, it
> should be able to *actually manage it's files*. I don't care if files
> are marked read only, or not, or if a live chicken is stapled to each
> podcast.
>
> The point is that Banshee should be able to transfer songs it has
> downloaded to the device it is connected to without error. However it
> does that, fine.
>
> Right now, the only way I can tranfer podcasts to my removable device
> is to run "chmod 777 ~/Podcasts/*" at a command line before each
> transfer.
>
> If I forget to do that then for whatever reason, the podcasts are not
> transferrable thereafter, even if I run chmod again and try and
> transfer them again. I have to manually delete and re-download the
> podcasts.
>
> I think this bug frustrates me more than a lot of bugs in other
> software because it is so obviously a flawed result, that I can't see
> how anyone can justify it's existence.

Hey Dave, I don't think anyone is justifying its existence, so calm 
down. I say this without needing to read the "complicated explanation of 
why" simply because the bug is marked as NEW, as opposed to 
INVALID/WONTFIX, which means that it is a valid bug (in the sense of 
"this bug exists, feel free to work on fixing it").

Most likely, the "complicated explanation of why" is just meant to be 
left in the bug so a developer can know the root cause of the bug and 
it's easier for him to solve it.

Does that make sense?

Cheers