On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 06:54 -0500, Edgar Luna wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Christian Bünnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
