On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 23:39 +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote: > > The point of the queue is to be a simple FIFO list. Say I'm listening to > > a playlist, and decide I want to hear songs X and Y next. I add them to > > the queu. After whatever song was playing finishes, X is played and > > removed from the queue, same with Y, and then rhythmbox resumes playing > > from the playlist/library/whatever source it was on. > > And what's wrong with doing exactly that, but without removing the songs > as they finish ? (apart from not behaving exactly like the FIFO abstract > data type). > Sorry, but either I'm dumb, either you didn't answer my question... > It's easy to give me an answer I like. If you keep the songs, you can > easily reschedule a song you just heard and which was particularly cool. > I just want a similar real world example about an issue caused by not > removing songs (or an advantage we have if we remove songs). > Actually, if you are space constrained (ie if you have the play queue > shown at the same time as the library), removing songs may make sense to > save precious screen estate, but if it's a separate source, I guess it's > ok to keep all the songs (to provide some kind of "play history"). > > Christophe I think I've somewhat misunderstood some of the ideas that have been presented, so perhaps I'm the dumbass :o Youre right about being able to backtrack to songs that were recently played. I dont see why this needs to relate to the queue though, when rhythmbox allready keeps the history of recent songs , and you can backtrack with the previous song button. If you want to see the names of songs, the history could be presented as another playlist in the source list for example, though thats a completely different discussion. I still think the queue should be a simple FIFO. From what I understand, you see the queue as a iTunes partyshuffle type thing, which I think is a completely different feature. I am completely for a partyshuffle "queue like" playlist, dont get me wrong, but calling it the queue is confusing IMO - it is more than that. I believe that when a Joe Sixpack type user finds that he can queue up songs, he expects that system to work on the fifo principle - I do. Thie queue shouldnt be overcomplicated, when the word "queue" implies a simple system. This is pretty much what I'm envisioning: On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 20:45 +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote: > So I'm thinking the solution is to split it into two bits: > > - Something like the existing queue sidebar that you can use to queue up > just a few songs. > > - A "queue" playlist type that just removes songs as they're played. > This would be what you'd use to queue up more than just a few songs. > It wouldn't preempt the playing source like the current queue does; > you'd have to stop the playing source, select the queue playlist, and > press play. -- Juha Sorensen :: demosh kolumbus fi Hvorfor bruger kvinder make-up og parfume?!? - Fordi de er grimme og de lugter!!!!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part