Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Rejection of "ignore the" patch (split from the Evil_G unsupported build thread)
Llorean:
Why do you suggest doing it in such a huge hack of a way? Sorting without articles by default?
I've told you: THAT IS NOT THE DESIRED BEHAVIOUR. You're not going to convince me otherwise, so please stop trying.
Please, if you're going to continue beating your head against this wall, do it elsewhere. Convince Apple to add a feature into iTunes that duplicates the "Performer" tag into the "Performer Sort Order" tag, and removes the article.
A list of articles for each language is just a worst hack.
Again, I don't see how "My tags are bad" is an argument for "The Rockbox guys should do something they don't want to do."
YOU can fix your tags. We have our software how we want it. Why exactly do you think we should make something work a way other than how WE want it, when it's software designed for us, by us, and you don't pay for it?
Remember: You aren't the consumer here. Rockbox, ultimately, doesn't depend on users. Every now and then a decision will be made, and it's not a democracy. There are a few people (I'm not one of them) who have the absolute final say on how things go. Decisions get made, and in some cases people don't agree with them. You aren't paying the bills, and you're free to use any other firmware of your choice. Rockbox isn't invested in keeping you as a customer.
It would be nice if you stuck around, but keeping you around is not a reason for the core Rockbox devs to implement a feature that they feel isn't the right solution to the problem.
lalittle:
--- Quote from: Llorean on May 23, 2007, 05:50:51 PM ---Why do you suggest doing it in such a huge hack of a way? Sorting without articles by default?
--- End quote ---
I respect your request that I not beat this into the ground, but since you specifically asked, I'll answer this question. Please understand that I'm not doing this in order to try and "convince" you of anything -- I'm simply trying to communicate my ideas on this subject more clearly. I thougth this this may still be of interest to you regardless of what the end result is.
What we're disagreeing on is the set of parameters that are important in this feature, and what constitutes a "hack." To me, one of the important aspects of this feature is that it should do the sorting without user intervention -- i.e. that it should not require a separate process of editing tags in order to achieve this behavior. I understand that you don't agree that this is important, but it is important to me. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this regard -- it's based on subjective opinion. From my point of view it's therefore not a "hack" since your method does not achieve what I'm looking for -- it just doesn't address a specific condition that I see as important. This NOT to say that you're method is "wrong" -- it simply is not a solution given my parameters, which are different than yours.
In other words, while we're both talking about the same END result, we're really not talking about the same thing. To me, the process needs to include the concept of working with the NATIVE tags from popular programs. Without this extra idea, the process doesn't achieve the goal that I'm personally looking for. I fully understand that your method satisfies your needs, but our needs/desires are different.
I don't know enough about this to do it myself, but hopefully, others will continue to work on a patch that achieves the goal without requiring tag editing. There is really no reason we can't both have the behavior we're looking for -- I may just have to use a patch that is not officially endorsed by the developers.
Thanks,
Larry
DefineByte:
It should be easy enough to write a script in foobar2000 to create the TSOP tags for you (foreign languages not withstanding). Is the extra effort your only beef?
GodEater:
From what I can gather, it seems *we* should implement a crappy solution in our software because either :
a) He can't find a tagging program that does the sort / display stuff
or
b) He can't be bothered to learn about one that does
lalittle:
--- Quote from: GodEater on May 24, 2007, 05:53:29 AM ---From what I can gather, it seems *we* should implement a crappy solution in our software
--- End quote ---
That's not fair. I'm not saying you should "do" anything -- I'm stating an opinion that you happen to disagree with. By having a discussion about this subject we can potentially understand something about the other's point of view. Regardless of whether or not any body's opinion is changed, it's still productive to try to understand other points of view. Calling it a "crappy" solution serves no purpose -- it's only creates an adversarial tone that makes it more difficult to have a meaningful conversation. We can respect each other's opinions even if we don't agree.
--- Quote ---because either :
a) He can't find a tagging program that does the sort / display stuff
or
b) He can't be bothered to learn about one that does
--- End quote ---
What's wrong with not wanting to be "bothered" with another step, even if it's a relatively simple one? It still takes extra time, so it's still more "convenient " to not have to do it. For example, I like being able to simply hit "record" on a TV program in order to record it rather than having to manually input record start/stop times. It takes more code and an entire system to support it, but it's a lot more convenient to the end user.
I seen nothing wrong with wanting the software to accomplish "article free" sorting without requiring my intervention. It's not because I'm "lazy," it's because it's more convenient to not have to go through the extra tagging step. Please note that I'm NOT trying to convince you to do this -- you've made your position perfectly clear. I'm just responding to your post, which I personally did not think was a fair representation of my opinion.
From my point of view (which I fully understand is different than yours), eliminating the need for user intervention would be a fantastic aspect of this feature. I merely expressed my opinion on this subject on an open forum where user feedback and opinions are welcomed. It's one thing to disagree with me -- even strongly -- but please don't ridicule my ideas just because my opinions differ from yours.
As to your two conclusions,
You're correct that I don't want to have to use a separate program to tag my files. I want to continue to use Media Center for my all my media needs (tagging, management, playback, etc.) Even if Media Center DID offer the ability to edit the "sort" tags separately (which it does not), I would still rather not have to do this. I don't call this laziness -- I call it wanting a more convenient solution that requires less work on my part. It's simply about wanting a more robust tool.
And just to be totally clear -- I FULLY understand that the Rockbox developers do NOT have to take ANY of my suggestions to heart. These forums are for the free exchange of ideas, and I'm simply offering my opinion for anyone interested. When it comes to a project like this, I firmly believe that offering opinions and ideas are the cornerstone for positive developments.
Thanks,
Larry
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version