Amarok 2.2 final tagged - future plans

[Ian Monroe]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Maximilian Kossick
<maximilian.kossick at googlemail.com> wrote:
> The synchronization code that I wrote mostly on the last weekend has
> successfully figured out that my local collection and magnatune have
> 12 tracks in common (after I downloaded those tracks from magnatune
> and removed the suffix that is). Which means it might work:) Needs
> testing though, see below.
>
> Somebody has to design a user interface around it though (not me,
> because I don't think that I'm very good at designing those:) )
> Currently available syncing modes are Union (ensure that both
> collections contain the same tracks) and master/slave (ensure that the
> slave contains exactly the same tracks as the master). A one way sync
> (i.e. one half of the Union sync mode) should be trivial to implement.
> I can write a more complete list of what the framework can currently
> do if necessary.
>
> Additionally, I'd like to commit it at some point and implement some
> hidden option in the scripting console to use it. I'm on OS X, which
> means no Solid support and therefore no way to test it with
> mediadevices. And syncing very large collections might be an issue too
> because the SQL queries get too complex. But I need some help to track
> down the surely existing issues.

If the code is non-invasive it might be ok to push it. But really it
might more sense to keep it in a branch until 2.2 is branched.

It might be worth having a discussion on when to branch 2.2. Should
pose some interesting new challenges to scripty as well. :)

Ian