On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Jonathan Matthew <jonat...@d14n.org>wrote:
> I don't have a concise summary of the problems I have with the current > rhythmbox. It's been building up over the last six months or so, maybe > longer. > > Anyway, my main problem is that the underlying data model is too rigid > and limited: > - the set of queryable entry properties is fixed > - entry properties can't have multiple values > - albums don't exist, they're synthesized from whatever > entries happen to match the album name > - file metadata, observed user data (play count, etc.), and user provided > data > (ratings) are all stored together when they'd be more useful separate > - the database is designed specifically to support implementation of the > genre->artist->album browser and doesn't work so well for other > things. > - it doesn't always make sense that sources are completely distinct from > each other > > These things are pretty much baked into every aspect of rhythmbox. > Rhythmbox is fine for what it is, but I don't think I can make it into > what I want it to be. It's sad to hear you saying that, Jonathan. Rythmbox was my first linux application I falled in love, 5 years ago, and I found it the more and more complete and efficient. And its stability and ease of use have always been the key points for been the default audio player in Gnome. Ok, maybe the used code language is now a bit too heavy and tightening comparing to other codes, but I think that there would be some more space for improvement or time to re-think about the used code - always keeping the important improvements that have been done so far. Maybe you could call for some new maintainers and try just to handle the transition toward a new rhythmbox development line and strategy. Anyway, thank you very much for all the time you (all) spent for us! Keep fine, giopas
_______________________________________________ rhythmbox-devel mailing list rhythmbox-devel@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/rhythmbox-devel
