> On Feb. 8, 2011, 2:36 a.m., Andy Coder wrote:
> > This seems reasonable enough to me. Especially since JsonQt was used
> > because it was already hanging around in the source tree, and availability
> > of friendly JSON libraries in package repos wasn't what it is today.
> > However, if the
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Ralf Engels wrote:
> And then we have the automatic playlist generator which in principle has
> the same functionality and a little bit different UI but still a similar
> amount of filters.
>
> So, dumb it down?
>From a pure UI and usability perspective, having tw
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100710/
---
Review request for Amarok.
Summary
---
The Firefly version installed
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Daniel Dewald
wrote:
> On Sunday 20 February 2011 22:58:51 you wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the immediate reply.
> >
> > 2011/2/21 Daniel Dewald
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Take my good advice and don't put any more work into this. Phonon's
> Audio
> > > D
So my testing is done and I have some good news and some bad. Here are my
results:
Xine Backend: No Change no joy. Amarok will crash on stopping or changing the
song if xine backend is used. However at least the audio data is being
transfered. I didn't use the git but version 4.4.4.
VLC Backen
The reason I tried this branch is because I really really want dynamic
playlists that work. And that I can come back to in 3 months and still
understand what they do!
I can't really answer the "dumb it down" question. What I wonder is what
scenarios does the current approach fulfil that the simple
--snip--
>
> All songs must be:
> (
> (
> 30% rating greater than 3 stars
> 30% rating greater than 4 stars
> 60% playcount equals 0
> )
> and
> Unique
> and
> Not: genre equals audiobook
> )
>
> and it still doesn't make sense
>
Ok. There was a Typo. It should sum up
