Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Preferences feature request
- From: Christian Bünnig <masala web de>
- To: Edgar Luna <edgar lunadiaz net>
- Cc: rhythmbox-devel gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] Preferences feature request
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:38:33 +0200
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 06:54 -0500, Edgar Luna wrote:
> 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.
It works quite well that way if Remuco is in 'party mode', then double
clicking songs (no mater in which source) adds the songs to the queue.
> > 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.
Sorry, I've mistaken that the original request was made by Martin :)
> > 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].
Of course for that case only, a plugin is a bit excessive. I just
mentioned the idea of such a plugin because I like the idea of setting
up more complex "playlists", like e.g. playing source A for one hour,
then play source B for 1/2h and finally randomly jump between source C
and D. But this a bit off-topic now.
> 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.
] [Thread Prev