Fwd: Re: proposed solution for defects 90095 & 119539 (674 votes, 638 votes) (Multiple artists per song)

[Leo Franchi]

forwarding to the list....

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Devon Jones <soulcatcher at evilsoft.org>
> Date: August 28, 2008 10:23:59 AM CDT
> To: Leo Franchi <lfranchi at kde.org>
> Subject: Re: proposed solution for defects 90095 & 119539 (674  
> votes, 638 votes) (Multiple artists per song)
>
> Leo Franchi wrote:
>> This is one of those features that we get a lot of requests for  
>> because it is usually desired by a *very* vocal minority. At the  
>> same time, none of us devs have huge well-tagged classical  
>> libraries, so we haven't implemented this ourselves.
>
> Yeah, only so many people ahve this kind of collection, but the  
> feature is invaluable to those of us who do :)
>
>> I do support the modification of our DB schema right now, as long  
>> as we do it *really soon* (e.g. next 5 or so days). I think we  
>> should really do our best to freeze the 2.0 schema, to reduce any  
>> sort of complexity on the part of the user with upgrading,  
>> downgrading, etc (the 1.x series were kind of a PITA in that  
>> department).
>>
>> That said, I don't think any of us are too engaged in this feature,  
>> so you would have to
>>
>> a) be willing to put in the work now, pre-2.0, to modify the schema  
>> a little bit
>
> Yep, not a problem.  I don't know your code base yet, so pointers of  
> where I need to look to prevent breakage would be really  
> appreciated.  I'm trying to get a dev environment up now. So any  
> pointers on that would also be useful. (I'm on Ubuntu, yes, I use  
> Gnome ;-) )
>
>> b) be willing to maintain it over a longer-term sort of timeframe.
>
> If it finally gets me a player that can do this, I have *no* problem  
> with maintaining that chunk of functionality long term.  I already  
> maintain it in private forks of 1 or 2 other apps where the devs  
> weren't keen on the idea.
>
>> i think this could also be a really cool feature that yet again  
>> distinguishes us from most other players.
>
> Having looked, this feature request exists for every major jukebox.   
> There is a hunger for the feature from a group of people who will  
> probably become rabidly loyal ;-)
>
>> I think just changing the schema pre-2.0  isn't too invasive, and  
>> isn't a feature-addition in itself. Nevertheless, it is important  
>> groundwork for the future 1-N stuff you are talking about.
>
> Thanks, I'm happy it's worth considering :-)
>
> Devon

---
Leo Franchi				(650) 704 3680
Tufts University 2010

lfranchi at kde.org
leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20080828/5221b4d1/attachment.htm