by godspeed » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:39 pm
That is a good idea. However, it will not fit with how I deal with my files. First, I have 2 redundant hard discs, with both inside mm. This way I try to get both discs identical by checking with mm if all tags are the same. Second, I have a copy of one of those discs in one hd partition dedicated to store a copy from files already in the backup. Those are "disposable" files, but those are the ones I use for listening, and converting to mp3 for the portable player. The directory structure for all 3 locations is identical.
I can create a criteria for all files but those in the computer (using the drive letter for that partition). This collection would have both backup discs content. I can create a criteria for only the files in the computer (again using the drive letter for that partition). But I cannot create a collection for only those in a particular folder of only one of the backup discs. And this is the problem.
For using this suggestion to work I would need to rename the directories to something like music1, music2, music3, hence breaking the similarity, somewhere down the line. Perhaps I could, I thought about this possibility before, but I really didn't want to do it. Perhaps it is because of my mental/psychological issues/limitations. I am a bit systematic (if you didn't realise yet), I would like to avoid changing names, I'd rather have identical structure for both discs. Also, deep inside I believe what I am after is possible, and I don't think it is absurd either. But indeed, this is a way of walking around this current limitation for mm.
Is it too much for this to be implemented in future versions? I don't think so. In fact, to me it is like just providing more access to what already is there. The data is there, the criteria and collection filtering systems are there, I cannot really see how much more effort is necessary for implementing the access to information for disconnected drives. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
That is a good idea. However, it will not fit with how I deal with my files. First, I have 2 redundant hard discs, with both inside mm. This way I try to get both discs identical by checking with mm if all tags are the same. Second, I have a copy of one of those discs in one hd partition dedicated to store a copy from files already in the backup. Those are "disposable" files, but those are the ones I use for listening, and converting to mp3 for the portable player. The directory structure for all 3 locations is identical.
I can create a criteria for all files but those in the computer (using the drive letter for that partition). This collection would have both backup discs content. I can create a criteria for only the files in the computer (again using the drive letter for that partition). But I cannot create a collection for only those in a particular folder of only one of the backup discs. And this is the problem.
For using this suggestion to work I would need to rename the directories to something like music1, music2, music3, hence breaking the similarity, somewhere down the line. Perhaps I could, I thought about this possibility before, but I really didn't want to do it. Perhaps it is because of my mental/psychological issues/limitations. I am a bit systematic (if you didn't realise yet), I would like to avoid changing names, I'd rather have identical structure for both discs. Also, deep inside I believe what I am after is possible, and I don't think it is absurd either. But indeed, this is a way of walking around this current limitation for mm.
Is it too much for this to be implemented in future versions? I don't think so. In fact, to me it is like just providing more access to what already is there. The data is there, the criteria and collection filtering systems are there, I cannot really see how much more effort is necessary for implementing the access to information for disconnected drives. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.