Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion
Rejection of "ignore the" patch (split from the Evil_G unsupported build thread)
lights0ut:
--- Quote from: Llorean on May 24, 2007, 07:15:06 PM ---
Bad Religion
Blue October
Blue Oyster Cult
Metallica
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
Queen
--- End quote ---
Bad Religion? Awesome! Let me guess, your favorite song is "I wanna Conquer the World"? ;) By the way, thanks for splitting this thread, Llorean, it's much appreciated. To add my 2 cents, I'm leaning towards Llorean's opinion: The sorting should be done with tags, after all, that is how music is sorted, by looking at the tags. By keeping the sorting in the tags you get other features (like Llorean and others pointed out) like being able to have some artists sort under various. I really don't use database view (as most of my music isn't tagged), but I don't find it irritating that The Killers, and The White Stripes are both under T for The, it's always been sorted that way (on my PC and on my DAP) so I'm used to it. While I understand that 'ignore-the' is quick and painless for users, it's not so quick and painless for the rockbox codebase, and this is what matters most to the devs. This is why we have to be patient for things like album art (which I am not complaining about, just making a point).
In the end, I trust what the devs do with the code, the focus seems to be on a rock solid DAP, with awesome audio playback, that has well implemented, and equally solid features, plugins, and extras. (way more than 2 cents worth, I think)
elborak:
--- Quote from: lalittle on May 24, 2007, 10:31:03 PM ---Basically, it comes down to preference
--- End quote ---
Exactly, which is Llorean's point. Supporting the sorting tags allows everyone to sort exactly as they want according to their preference. The other approach satisfies your preference but leaves others without a solution. Hence the choice seems obvious.
lalittle:
--- Quote from: elborak on May 24, 2007, 10:51:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: lalittle on May 24, 2007, 10:31:03 PM ---Basically, it comes down to preference
--- End quote ---
Exactly, which is Llorean's point.
--- End quote ---
My point is that issues directly pertaining to the sort behavior are only PART of this discussion -- there are other factors involved, such as the conditions under which this sorting takes place. Whether or not the process requires user intervention is an important aspect of this to me. I understand that this isn't the case for everybody, but it is for ME. You can accuse me of being "lazy" if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that having to go through a separate process in order for this to work is a central issue for me, and THIS is at the core of my argument.
--- Quote ---Supporting the sorting tags allows everyone to sort exactly as they want according to their preference.
--- End quote ---
But it does NOT do it automatically, which once again is an important aspect of this in MY personal opinion. You can point out OTHER advantages to "your" method, but these have no bearing on the issue of making the feature fully automatic. We are talking about two different aspects of one overall subject.
--- Quote ---The other approach satisfies your preference but leaves others without a solution.
--- End quote ---
Remember, however, that the reverse is ALSO true -- i.e. your approach does not satisfy MY needs given that non-intervention is one of my "needs" in this situation. We simply disagree on how much extra effort is "acceptable" in order to get this behavior. I want to rip, sync, and go -- and have everything sorted without the articles. Your method does not offer this.
--- Quote ---Hence the choice seems obvious.
--- End quote ---
Your method is the obvious choice from YOUR point of view, but "my" method is a better choice from my point of view because your method does not satisfy certain parameters.
Keep in mind also that when you bring the idea of "others" into the equation as you did, you need to consider that we really don't know how many people would prefer one method over the other. Your statement implies that I'm essentially alone (or at least in the minority) in my opinion, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know this. It could be that more people would want to keep the process entirely automatic compared to those that would prefer the other capabilities that your method offers.
As pointed out by the developers, however, it doesn't matter -- it's up to them what they do, and I accept this (althougth I'll still voice my opinions on the subject.) I'm simply saying that without a lot more evidence, it's not fair to paint a picture where my opinion is the minority one. The opposite "could" be true.
Larry
Llorean:
You can use MY method by performing one extra step: Tagging.
Others CANNOT do certain things with your method independent of the number of extra steps because it is inflexible.
This is a case of "Everyone can do anything, though some need a little extra work" vs "Some can do what they want with a minimum of work, and others can't do what they want at all" and I think the option that actually allows everyone to use the feature is preferable, clearly, because it doesn't force exclusion.
You cannot claim to be forcibly excluded: You CHOOSE not to fix the tags. Meanwhile, those who speak a language that Rockbox doesn't support the articles for, or those who have songs that are mixed case as to whether the article needs to be removed or not (multilingual: Something may be an article in one language and not one in another) are forcibly excluded by your method, and no choice of theirs can make their existing collection compliant with a limited system.
It's not a case of your opinion being the minority, I suspect the majority would prefer a simple method that doesn't require intervention. It's a case where yours forcibly excludes a group, your method is redundant (it makes the binary size bigger, but you seem to not care about technological hurdles in the slightest), and if we were to avoid the redundancy your method doesn't offer any solution to the other problems that the sort order tags solve (without coding independent solution, which brings us back to the binary size issue).
GodEater:
@lalittle -> I'd also say, to be blunt, looking through this thread, that you've not gathered hordes of support for your "solution" - you do seem to be the only person arguing for it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version