Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Preferences feature request

["Edgar Luna" <edgar lunadiaz net>]

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Andrew Conkling
<andrew conkling gmail com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Martin Karlsson
> <martin rb karlsson gmail com> wrote:
> >
>
> I (kind of) understand why you'd want this, but how does that give the user
> "more control"? And from which play source would you continue? The active
> playlist? An inactive playlist? The library? I have a few songs that are in
> a few playlists and I can't imagine Rhythmbox would always make the "right"
> choice if it behaved this way. It currently resumes what I was playing
> before--"and now, back to your regularly scheduled programming"--which I
> think makes sense.
>
I think I wrote a bit about it, rhythmbox will use the information
from the last queued song (I guess rhythmbox know where each element
in queue come from), if you want that rhythmbox continue to play from
the last position before queue start playng just put the next song.
For example:

I'm in a playlist listening song #4, then I queue songs from anywhere,
then I queue song #5 from the playlist that I was (or I am) listening,
then Rhythmbox will play queue, including #5 from queue then it goes
to #6. That way you replicate the actual behaviour. But with the
actual behaviour you can't make it for example skip song #5, it
allways will play #5, because it comes back to next song that it was
playing before queue. It gives more control because allows to do a
different thing, allow to decide what to play after queue is empty,
which could be as usual or another song, depends on user.

Not that the actual behaviour isn't intuitive, just that is less
flexible to me. If I think about I think it feels like: "Queue is an
exceptional list of thing that I want that interrupt the normal flow
of play order" which is easy to learn since the first time you use it.
In the other hand, jumping to the next song after the last queued song
doesn't seems that hard to grasp.

Regards,
-- 
Edgar A. Luna