Amarok 2.2 final tagged - future plans

[Maximilian Kossick]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Ian Monroe <ian.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 requires one change to various querymakers (being able to query for
albumartists). Otherwise it just used the QueryMaker /
CollectionLocation API. It might expose some more bugs in existing
querymakers or collecitonlocation, but that is not necessarily a bad
thing I guess.

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