1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" [#5626]

by **chrisjj** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:42 am

> any change now should take the future plans in consideration.

Er, what future plans?? Rusty said only "This was named in this manner because we'd expected to support video/picture synchronization." Note: "we'd".

> You don't have to investigate in which version the bug first occurred

You do, to meet your requirement: "It's always been my understanding that the Beta forum is used to report bugs that were created in the new Beta cycle and the Bug forum for bugs that existed pre-beta cycle."

> if you know which version (pre beta or beta) this guideline should be followed.

You're free to follow your own personal guidelines. Meanwhile I think you'll find most testers prefer the official guidelines (http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... ?f=6&t=341), with which this one of yours does not accord.

by **Lowlander** » Fri May 29, 2009 9:35 am

chrisjj wrote: Yes it will, IF and WHEN that context ("When video/pictures are added") arises. At that time, I suggest you raise it in a a seperate topic.

I agree with Rusty that any change now should take the future plans in consideration.

chrisjj wrote: The entire remainder of the MM UI /does/. If you disagree with that too, fine, but I suggest raise it in a seperate topic.

I don't require things to be worded in my way.

chrisjj wrote: Fair point, but that would lose the track count which I beleive is important to many. Selfishly, it is all-important to me as a checkup to detect MM's loss of tracks upon sync.

Yet MediaMonkey is used by others as well.

chrisjj wrote: Not mine! No way should reporters be requred to determine when a bug was created!!

You don't have to investigate in which version the bug first occurred, as moderators/developers can move topics, but if you know which version (pre beta or beta) this guideline should be followed. This helps limiting double posts about bugs as regular users will also be posting their bugs (but pre-beta) in the Bug forum, whereas the Beta forum is the domain of beta testers. I just meant it as informative.

by **Ludek** » Fri May 29, 2009 6:24 am

Chris, I don't understand what you are trying to do here, it is already in Mantis as you can see:
http://www.ventismedia.com/mantis/view.php?id=5626
and as you can see string changes will be made post 3.1

by **chrisjj** » Fri May 29, 2009 4:54 am

>> and in that context "files" for the grand total will be unambiguous.
> But that would still exclude the playlists (and I assume album art files as well) and thus the same issue you raise would still exist.
Yes it will, IF and WHEN that context ("When video/pictures are added") arises. At that time, I suggest you raise it in a a seperate topic.

> The word tracks would also be incorrect in my opinion as I don't consider audiobooks or podcast tracks.

The entire remainder of the MM UI /does/. If you disagree with that too, fine, but I suggest raise it in a seperate topic.

> I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just include playlists in the total files count, especially as
> they have their own tab, that would probably be a more consistent solution.

Fair point, but that would lose the track count which I beleive is important to many. Selfishly, it is all-important to me as a checkup to detect MM's loss of tracks upon sync.

> It's always been my understanding that the Beta forum is used to report bugs that were created in the new Beta cycle

Not mine! No way should reporters be requred to determine when a bug was created!!

by **Lowlander** » Thu May 28, 2009 10:44 pm

chrisjj wrote:..., and in that context "files" for the grand total will be unambiguous.

But that would still exclude the playlists (and I assume album art files as well) and thus the same issue you raise would still exist.

The word tracks would also be incorrect in my opinion as I don't consider audiobooks or podcast tracks. Media files or music files would also not work as many would consider playlists media or music files. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just include playlists in the total files count, especially as they have their own tab, that would probably be a more consistent solution.

chrisjj wrote:You have got to be kidding.

Rusty wrote:Moving to the bugs forum since it's not beta specific and we won't be tackling this in 3.1.0.

It's always been my understanding that the Beta forum is used to report bugs that were created in the new Beta cycle and the Bug forum for bugs that existed pre-beta cycle.

by **chrisjj** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:56 pm

> I just found it dishonest that when people weren't
> agreeing in one post to start a new one.

That's a shameful misrepresentation. The first posted (linked to this only by you) was about a wish - this post is about a bug.

> Just ask a mod to move the post

No need thanks, since I am a mod.

by **Lowlander** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:46 pm

This forum is also for discussion between users about the different things concerning MediaMonkey. I just found it dishonest that when people weren't agreeing in one post to start a new one. Just ask a mod to move the post and will do so, that's what were for here.

by **fourteen** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:37 pm

Lowlander wrote:Then just ask it to be moved, this discussing of the issues in so many topics is way more confusing. Secondly it's not a bug, it's a personal preference of you. As the other topic shows people were disagreeing with your point of view. So at least link to the previous discussion of the same topic.

This would also be the wrong forum as I assume the naming was used pre-3.1, thus it's not a beta issue.

Lowlander,

If you are not an offical MediaMonkey person, I think you should back off and let an official MediaMonkey person handle this - I guess you would not be the judge of whether something is a bug or not then.

If you are an offical MediaMonkey person, then I would hope you would be more appreciative of people reporting bugs. Otherwise people will very quickly stop reporting bugs and not bother taking the time of filing these reports. You should not underestimate the time and effort taken by the people making these reports, all done to help, for free, Ventis Media make MediaMonkey a better software.

by **chrisjj** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:08 pm

> this discussing of the issues in so many topics is way more confusing.

If it is confusing you LL, then please stop reading. That will suit me fine.

> Secondly it's not a bug, it's a personal preference of you.

Yes it is a bug. The label includes playlists whereas the figure does not accord.

> This would also be the wrong forum as I assume the naming was used pre-3.1, thus it's not a beta issue.

You have got to be kidding.

by **Lowlander** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:46 pm

Then just ask it to be moved, this discussing of the issues in so many topics is way more confusing. Secondly it's not a bug, it's a personal preference of you. As the other topic shows people were disagreeing with your point of view. So at least link to the previous discussion of the same topic.

This would also be the wrong forum as I assume the naming was used pre-3.1, thus it's not a beta issue.

by **chrisjj** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:42 pm

Lowlander wrote:Wasn't this already discussed in another topic?

That was a (related) wish. This is a bug report.

by **Lowlander** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:32 pm

Wasn't this already discussed in another topic?

by **chrisjj** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:46 am

> This was named in this manner because we'd expected to support video/picture synchronization
> Do you have a better idea re. terminology that would handle all three while keeping track of the 'files' that users really care about ?

Re the four existing on-tab totals, assuming video/pictures are not going to be added to the existing tabs (Music, Playlists, Audiobooks and Podcasts) you can't get better than "tracks" I'd say.

Re the off-tab total, until video/pictures are added, it seems "tracks" is again best. When video/pitures are added, you could have nnn tracks/videos/pictures, but I suggest the user will want a breakdown e.g. three sub-totals, and in that context "files" for the grand total will be unambiguous.

by **rusty** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:39 pm

Chris,

I see your point. This was named in this manner because we'd expected to support video/picture synchronization. Do you have a better idea re. terminology that would handle all three while keeping track of the 'files' that users really care about ?

-Rusty

by **chrisjj** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:06 pm

The Auto-Sync List dialog's indication of the quantity of files to be autosynced (bottom of dialog e.g. 2819 files, 6.9 GB, 84:30:37 ) is wrong when the list includes playlists.

Auto-sync includes files for both tracks (e.g. mp3) and playlists (e.g. .pla) (and sometimes others), but the "files" quantity includes only tracks.

Hence the indication should be e.g. 2819 tracks, 6.9 GB, 84:30:37. Likewise the n files on the bottom of each of the four tabs should be n tracks.

Please see also http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... 28#p146628 .

1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" [#5626]

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" [#5626]

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

Re: 1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" -------

1248 Auto-Sync List total tracks mislabelled "files" [#5626]