Bug 153129 - [Feature Request] Database browser - view by directory structure
Summary: [Feature Request] Database browser - view by directory structure
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 141781
Alias: None
Product: amarok
Classification: Applications
Component: general (other bugs)
Version First Reported In: unspecified
Platform: Unlisted Binaries Linux
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Amarok Bugs
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-11-29 15:00 UTC by Wujek Bogdan
Modified: 2008-07-29 05:52 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Attachments
Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Wujek Bogdan 2007-11-29 15:00:00 UTC 
Version:           2.0 (using KDE KDE 3.96.0)
Installed from:    Unspecified Linux
OS:                Linux

Is it possible to port view by directory structure in database browser?
I know there is built-in disk explorer... but it is not the same.
why not include sorting by directory in database browser?
The same feature provides foobar2000 player for win (btw my favorite player;)) and some of MPD clients.
browsing my media collection is much more comfortable.... especialy for Various Artists.

take a look at this topic >>> http://amarok.kde.org/forum/index.php/topic,13694.0.html
and lycoloco's post. he described the problem very clearly.

ps. sory for my english.
Comment 1 Ian Monroe 2007-11-30 04:08:57 UTC 
As I said in the thread, I don't see the advantage over using the file browser. From what I understood, Lycoloco seemed to be saying its better for it to be in the database because its in the database.
Comment 2 Ian Monroe 2007-11-30 04:10:28 UTC 
Um, you already opened this bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 141781 ***
Comment 3 Wujek Bogdan 2008-03-08 19:29:11 UTC 
There aro LOT of advantages.
for example if music colection isn't tagged, than database browser looks awful.
take look at lycoloco screenshot above
Comment 4 Dan Meltzer 2008-07-29 05:52:39 UTC 
Why did you unmark this as a duplicate?

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 141781 ***