Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Preferences feature request

["Edgar Luna" <edgar lunadiaz net>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Christian Bünnig <masala web de> wrote:
>  The proposed behavior would break the way I am using Rhythmbox. I really
>  like the party mode. Often I set up a playlist with some music for 2/3
>  hours. However, my guests may browse the library and pick up songs to be
>  played - they intuitively double-click the songs they like and so the
>  songs end up in the queue (well, party mode). So the queue is the
>  playground for my guests, they can do with it whatever they want to. But
>  the queue should not have any influence what to play when the queue is
>  empty - I always want my previous playlist to be played when my guests
>  don't feel like DJs anymore.
Yup, as far as I understand it will broke what you intend to do wiith
it and I could even agree that is a very good way to use it, but I'm
not sure that the current behaviour is that coherent, because if I
double click in a playist or another source your nice setup plan goes
to hell.

>  I would guess that most users expect the queue to have no influence on
>  the played source.
>
That's sound good to me, I just want to note that this is a
one-time-surprise for that users, they learn what happend if they want
to continue the flow, just add to queue the song that is next in their
normal flow.

>  IMO, your (Edgar) requested feature ist not a queue thing, at least it
>  is more than just queuing songs. Actually it is in-advance arranging of
>  songs _and_ sources to play (including which song to start from in a
>  source).
>
Hello, I *didn't* request a thing, I'm explaining why changing the
behaviour of queue to: play the next song after que last song on queue
gives to user more flexiblity than playing the next song before the
queue is even started. Then I was asked "and how this will affect when
queue from another sources" and I answered the "consistent behaviour
is this", and ~10 mails here I'm. I just explained how the behaviour
would work. And I will prefeer over the actual one, but I have some
time with rhythmbox right now and I can say that I can live with it in
this aspect.

>  Maybe it is better to provide a plugin that allows you to do some
>  special arrangements of what to play when. Especially if you or other
>  users could imagine some further
>  "I-want-RB-to-play-things-exactly-in-that-way" situations which cannot
>  be realized with the queue.
>
Maybe, which is... the queue+ playing S[s+1].

Nobody is advocating a behaviour here. I just explained what I get is
another behaviour, different like usual will work. Maybe I should stop
answering "and what if" quesitons. The behaviour is clearly explained
as far as I can see, because people who feels that it breaks one of
his use case has presented ways in with it doesn't work. Then let
devolopers decide what they think. I'm done, if you, the friendly
rhythmbox-devel list, want to provide use cases could be better for
developers to decide, I think.

Regards,
-- 
Edgar A. Luna