ANNOUNCEMENT: Album Art now committed to svn

[stripwax]

http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/AlbumArt

 

[psycho_maniac]

it seems that no themes will work because most of the AA themes that i saw on the wiki need the scrolling margins patch also.

[NicolasP]

The scrolling margins patch (FS#2954) should be dropped in favour of linuxstb's simpler version (FS#8135), which has far better chances of being committed.

[yapper]

Excellent - Album Art   Thanks to all who worked on this!

[Llorean]

Please respect the posting guidelines. The forums are for questions and discussion. The major changes page exists for a reason and posts like this simply dilute search results.

[Mikerman]

This is a wonderful development in the Rockbox experience--many thanks!  It offers the opportunity for a great deal of creativity and the need for creativity, especially for lcd display and lcd real estate limited devices such as the iRiver H1xx.  I look forward to people's creative efforts here!



A question about the syntax:  with the syntax of

 Â    %Cl|x|y|[l|c|r][d|i|s]maxwidth|[t|c|b][d|i|s]maxheight|,

what do the variables [d|i|s] represent?  Perhaps I missed that--I couldn't find it at the cover art wiki page.

Also, am I correct that right now with committed (and unpatched) code, it is not possible to set left (or right) margins, for scrolling text or not, so as, for example, to have album information appear to the right of the album art?  I assume that to be the case (and did not see any set margin commands at the WPS commands page); I take it this is the topic being considered with the patches listed above, but I just wanted to make sure.

Finally, I wonder if consideration has been given to the possibility of alternating WPS displays, such as album art for 5-10 seconds followed by album text information for 5-10 seconds.  Although, thinking about it some, I guess that this currently could be accomplished by using conditionals and alternating sublines throughout current WPS code, under which if there was album art, the album art would display for a period of time during which the current listed text/variables would not appear.  An interesting possibility, and the makings for many hours of challenging fun!

[Mikerman]

Well, and now as of later today, we have a left margin setting command for scrolling text ...

[Llorean]

Considering I already mentioned the guidelines earlier in this thread, I thought it would be unlikely that a second guideline would be broken in it.

Please be so kind as to do what you agreed to do and read them.

[Mikerman]

Sorry, dude, I don't get you:  are you saying that this thread is not for questions and discussion?

The forums are for questions and discussion.

My second post simply modifies my first to clarify it as to the development, so that people don't reply that the margin can indeed be set  or otherwise think that the margin can't be set.  Perhaps I should have edited my first post, but I sometimes find that confusing as a reader who already has read through the posts.

Please feel free to pm me with any issue, so as to avoid diluting the threads.  Am looking forward to responses to my inquiries in the original post--thanks!

[Llorean]

Whether you find it confusing or not to edit the first post, the rules explicitly say not to post twice in a row.

So, while yes, your post is of a topic that would be better suited to a new thread (how is anyone to know from the topic of this thread that it contains questions and possibly answers about album art syntax: it would've been better to start a new thread) it isn't strictly off-topic, and what I was commenting on was most certainly the fact that you posted twice in a row rather than using edit, as we frequently remind people of the guidelines that relates to this. Unfortunately, you don't get to decide to ignore the guidelines because you think they make things more confusing.

Editing your existing post when nobody has responded yet will still mark the thread with a [new] icon for other users, so they know it has changed.

[Mikerman]

Thank you for the helpful comments and I certainly will re-edit in the future, so as to avoid causing issue (altho in my humble belief, it still causes confusion as to matters and what has been changed--and I did not proceed so as to intentionally ignore the rules).

Again, and getting back to the topic (which I thought was broad enough to cover my inquiry), am looking forward to responses to my original post, for the development of WPSs with this great feature!  (I also am happy to start a separate thread to cover them, should that be preferred.)

[Llorean]

In regard to those extra letters, I have no clue, and wondered about them myself, but I think they were accidentally added or left on the page from the unsupported patch, as they aren't there any more.

[pixelma]

I asked Nico_P in IRC what the [d|i|s] means and he said it had to do with the scaling that was in the original patch. As a result he removed it from the wiki because this is not implemented in the official version yet which the wiki is supposed to describe.

[tdtooke]

The scrolling margins patch (FS#2954) should be dropped in favour of linuxstb's simpler version (FS#8135), which has far better chances of being committed.

I'm in 100% agreement with you, I just don't want 2954 closed.  As it stands now (as of 10 minutes before this post) it extends the recent %m commit to function as you committed it and also as the old scroll-margins worked.  For the time being I think it fills a void as there will always be people who want to define a right margin.  And on a happier note I must say I'm completely thrilled with your latest commits!  Amiconn commiting ipod brightness control was pretty cool too!

[Llorean]

The whole point of the patch tracker is for patches seeking inclusion in Rockbox.

If a patch will never, ever be included in Rockbox, why should it be left open to encourage people to work on something that is unwanted, rather than closed with the (somewhat slim) hope that the people wanting that feature will instead go about doing it a way that can be included?

To me at least, leaving a patch open on the tracker that we don't want specifically makes the tracker a means of supporting unsupported builds. It encourages people to post any patch, even "NoDo patches", that users may want to use, so that they can be developed for these unsupported builds, and any patch that is closed as "rejected" can become a controversy because of inconsistent policies on when a patch is rejected if it's not simply "we have decided not to include it in the official build."

For consistency's sake, if a patch isn't to be included, it should be rejected. It's the Rockbox tracker, not the "Everyone's build's patch tracker."