Hi, On 2015-07-31 23:43, kainz.a wrote: > what's the problem with using Amarok? In kde4 times they are the first > application that use plasma. now I think an qt 5 port is still open so this > would be the perfect time to get into an redesign isn't it? If the amarok > developers don't like an redesign (what I can understand, because the last > redesign was not that fun) maybe with the port to qt5 the UI can be more > separate so a lot of code can be shared.
as I wrote in my previous mails, nothing is set in stone yet. But this will (most probably) not be something like Amarok 3. Why not? One thing is that you can't throw away probably 70 % of the features, never ever accept those features back into the application (remember: This should be a simple music player, designed for "standard" users of Plasma 5, not users that want to use tons of features in their music player) and call it Amarok. Codebase could probably be shared, but it seems easier to start from a simpler (e.g. the PMC) codebase. But that is a technical decision that will be done when a team has formed :) > baloo integration is for me a must, because plasma offers this and so we > should use it. If using baloo fits into the vision (which I think would fit because non-experienced users maybe don't know where there music is), why not use it. PMC uses it, Bangarang used Nepomuk. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
