[gpodder] Re: gPodder 3.1.0 "The Discipline of D.E." released
- From: Thomas Perl <th.perl@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gpodder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:08:47 +0200
Hi,
2012/6/11 Joseph Wickremasinghe <jnwickremasinghe@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I'm quite happy to create a github account but I don't know if it would make
> things much simpler - I would only push updates at about the same frequency
> that I've been creating patches anyway, since I wouldn't want anyone pulling
> from my repository and getting incomplete or broken updates.
>
> However, if that's how the development team have been co-ordinating efforts I
> can create an account - let me know :)
We could give it a try. I've been commenting on Github for some other
projects and patches, and it's quite nice. No problem if you don't
want to do it, though - sending patches via the bug tracker is fine as
well. If you want to try it, feel free to set up a Github account and
"fork" the gPodder repository, then submit a pull request after
checking in your patch.
Thanks,
Thomas
> --- On Sat, 6/9/12, Bernd Schlapsi <brot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> From: Bernd Schlapsi <brot@xxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [gpodder] Re: gPodder 3.1.0 "The Discipline of D.E." released
>> To: gpodder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Saturday, June 9, 2012, 2:42 PM
>> Hi,
>>
>> Have you ever thought using github?
>>
>> I applied your patch and get an error when I try to sync two
>> episodes:
>> Exception in thread Thread-4:
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/threading.py", line 551, in
>> __bootstrap_inner
>> self.run()
>> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/threading.py", line 504, in
>> run
>> self.__target(*self.__args, **self.__kwargs)
>> File
>> "./gpodder-dev/src/gpodder/gtkui/desktop/sync.py", line 162,
>> in
>> sync_thread_func
>> device.add_sync_tasks(episodes,
>> force_played=force_played)
>> File "./gpodder-dev/src/gpodder/sync.py", line 226,
>> in add_sync_tasks
>> if
>> self._config.device_sync.after_sync.delete_episodes and not
>> track.is_locked:
>> File "./gpodder-dev/src/gpodder/model.py", line 159,
>> in _deprecated
>> raise Exception('Property is deprecated!')
>> Exception: Property is deprecated!
>>
>>
>> ~ Bernd
>>
>> On 2012-06-09 17:47, Joseph Wickremasinghe wrote:
>> > Hi Bernd,
>> >
>> > I'll let Thomas give you the official opinion but I
>> would consider it in a mature beta phase right now. The code
>> is on my local machine, but I've been sharing updates in the
>> form of patches to the master (3.x) branch of gpodder. I
>> would suggest downloading the patch from Bug 1579 and
>> applying it against your code?
>> >
>> > https://bugs.gpodder.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1579
>> >
>> > Currently device sync is only implemented for a
>> filesystem-based mp3 player since that's what I use.I have
>> access to an iPod shuffle so I can add that in at a later
>> date but I want to get filesystem-based sync completely
>> finished up & integrated first.
>> >
>> >
>> > J.
>> > --- On Sat, 6/9/12, Bernd Schlapsi <brot@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Bernd Schlapsi <brot@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> Subject: [gpodder] Re: gPodder 3.1.0 "The
>> Discipline of D.E." released
>> >> To: gpodder@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Date: Saturday, June 9, 2012, 3:22 AM
>> >> Hi Joseph,
>> >>
>> >> what is the current state of you synchronisation
>> work?
>> >>
>> >> Do you work on your code local on your machine or
>> could you
>> >> provide a
>> >> github repository with your own device-sync
>> branch?
>> >> This would be great so it would be easy for
>> everyone to test
>> >> and track
>> >> your progress :-)
>> >>
>> >> I would like to test the device-sync because I
>> would like to
>> >> see this
>> >> feature in the 3.x version of gPodder in the near
>> future.
>> >> At the moment I'm still using 2.x, but writing code
>> for 3.x
>> >> which I'm
>> >> not able to use, because I need the
>> device-sync.:-(
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Bernd
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2012-05-28 16:20, Thomas Perl wrote:
>> >>> Hi Joseph,
>> >>>
>> >>> (sorry for taking again very long to respond,
>> but I
>> >> wanted to allocate
>> >>> enough time again to make sure I can review the
>> patch
>> >> and give some
>> >>> feedback)
>> >>>
>> >>> 2012/5/20 Joseph Wickremasinghe <jnwickremasinghe@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> >>>> Thanks for your comments. After my last
>> email, I
>> >> switched to a 'one task per episode' approach and
>> made some
>> >> further progress. I'm including a patch to add
>> device sync
>> >> to gpodder which uses the 'Downloads' tab to show
>> progress.
>> >>> Thanks - this looks good. I've left some
>> feedback on
>> >> the bug report
>> >>> where you submitted the patch.
>> >>>
>> >>>> The synchronization process opens the
>> device and
>> >> creates a 'SyncTask' object for each episode
>> synchronized.
>> >> The SyncTask object is derived from DownloadTask,
>> overriding
>> >> the run() method. The task is then registered with
>> the
>> >> download status model and added to the download
>> queue, which
>> >> then executes it and updates the GUI in the same
>> way as for
>> >> downloads.
>> >>> Yes, that sounds good and should work. For
>> later (after
>> >> merging or
>> >>> just before), we should probably rename the
>> classes and
>> >> the UI parts
>> >>> so that is clear to the user that the downloads
>> tab is
>> >> also used for
>> >>> other progress information (and also in the
>> code so
>> >> that developers
>> >>> reading the code can quickly find their way
>> through the
>> >> codebase).
>> >>>> Please let me know your comments. :) There
>> is
>> >> probably some code refactoring that could be done,
>> perhaps a
>> >> reworking of the Device & SyncTask objects,
>> too.
>> >> Presently the Device adds the Task objects to the
>> queue, but
>> >> when the tasks are executed they call the add_track
>> method
>> >> on the device to actually copy the files over.
>> Probably not
>> >> the cleanest way to do it, but this is still a
>> >> work-in-progress :) This is currently only
>> implemented for a
>> >> filesystem-based mp3 player.
>> >>> See the comments in the bug report. Please also
>> tell me
>> >> if you'd
>> >>> rather like me to have a go through the patch
>> and do
>> >> some clean-ups
>> >>> that I think are necessary (mostly just code
>> style,
>> >> etc..) or if you
>> >>> would like to do this yourself (I'm happy with
>> both
>> >> approaches, and
>> >>> don't want to annoy you with requests for
>> reformatting
>> >> the code ;).
>> >>>> I can certainly work on making this an
>> extension as
>> >> well, but it was easier for me to finalize the
>> interface and
>> >> then figure out how to make it an extension.
>> >>> Yep, I guess the first step could be to
>> integrate this,
>> >> and then
>> >>> re-work this as an extension. At this point,
>> I'm quite
>> >> happy if we
>> >>> could get it in as such (for the Gtk UI only)
>> and then
>> >> later work on
>> >>> refactoring it up to a point where it can be
>> used by
>> >> the CLI UI as
>> >>> well (maybe even Web UI).
>> >>>
>> >>> Looking forward to your comments and the next
>> patch!
>> >> Thanks for
>> >>> working on this, it's really appreciated :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Thomas
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
