On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Martin Karlsson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I often, like you, queues songs and have Rhythmbox running with shuffle > turned on. However, when I have guest coming over, the music have to be more > carefully picked. Yeah, you definitely have to be careful: http://xkcd.com/400. I actually does not know which behaviour makes the most sense -- that > Rhythmbox continues after the last played song (regardless of whether it was > manually played or queued), or picks up after the last manually played song. > I suspect that the first one is more flexible, and maybe for certain people > more intuitive. On the contrary, there is probably people thinking that the > second behaviour is sensible too. I think the second (current) behavior makes sense, at least for my use case: I am playing a set of songs (I generally don't shuffle) and I want to listen to a single song, right now. Thus the queue. But when the queue is empty, I want my playlist to continue sequentially. > My opinion, however, is that Rhythmbox (if the play queue is empty) should > contunue after the last played song (manually or queued), since it gives the > user more control over the application. > 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.
_______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
