From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz_at_student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:31:52 +0100

On 27.12.2010 00:36, sideral wrote:
> Paul Louden<paulthenerd_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> On 12/21/2010 7:47 PM, Mike Giacomelli wrote:
>>> That seems reasonable. List the parts that are of concern to you and
>>> we can commit the rest in the mean time.
>> The option to turn auto-resume on/off.
>> No other options, with the default behaviour when it's on to be "all
>> files, but never subsequent files within one playlist."
> This sounds reasonable for a first commit, if with the last sentence you
> mean "never resume on automatic track change". The next (or previous)
> track should still be resumed when manually started via a track skip
> (Right / Left buttons).
>
> Also, I suggest to also consider the 15-second delay for updating the
> resume position, with the changes I've outlined in my two last couple of
> messages, for committing along with the core feature (or for a
> subsequent merge after some more simmering), because it does not need
> configuration, is hardly surprising, and adds value of the "do what I
> want" kind.

That's a default behavior I could live with very well. I think it needs
the least configuration complexity and catches the majority of use cases.

Although I'd like to add that resume points are also not stored within
the *last* 15s of a song, because I usually have the "Skip to outro"
setting enabled.

Best regards.
Received on 2010-12-27