skip a directory during scan

[Eyal Ben David-2]

Hi all,

I would like to know if Amarok has an option to skip a folder when scanning a directory tree for songs.

I will explain the question by a simple scenario:

* Suppose I have two versions of the same disk. Let's call them "Original" and "Remastered".
* I want only the Remastered version to be in the collection (to avoid duplication).
* I want to keep the Original in the directory tree but I don't want it in my collection DB.
* I would like to know if there's a way to mark the Original version so that it will be skipped during the scan operation.


I am aware of the tree dialog. I just want something like "Scan whole DIR recursively except DIR1, DIR2" etc.


Thanks

_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Eyal Ben David wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I would like to know if Amarok has an option to skip a folder when
> scanning a directory tree for songs.
>
> I will explain the question by a simple scenario:
>
> * Suppose I have two versions of the same disk. Let's call them
> "Original" and "Remastered".
> * I want only the Remastered version to be in the collection (to avoid
> duplication).
> * I want to keep the Original in the directory tree but I don't want it
> in my collection DB.
> * I would like to know if there's a way to mark the Original version so
> that it will be skipped during the scan operation.
>
>
> I am aware of the tree dialog. I just want something like "Scan whole
> DIR recursively except DIR1, DIR2" etc.

Nope.

--Jeff



_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

[Lydia Pintscher-2]

You could rename the folders you want to hide to .something so they
are hidden from the scanner. Besides that there is not much you can do
as Jeff said.


Cheers
Lydia

--
Lydia Pintscher
Amarok community manager
kde.org - amarok.kde.org - kubuntu.org
claimid.com/nightrose
_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> You could rename the folders you want to hide to .something so they
> are hidden from the scanner. Besides that there is not much you can do
> as Jeff said.

I suppose one thing that could be done (but isn't available now) is to
put in a non-GUI option to have the scanner skip symlinks. Then you
could keep the folders you don't want added outside of the main tree but
symlink to them.

Not sure if this is a good idea though.

--Jeff



_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

[Jakob Kummerow]

> I suppose one thing that could be done (but isn't available now) is to
> put in a non-GUI option to have the scanner skip symlinks. Then you
> could keep the folders you don't want added outside of the main tree but
> symlink to them.
>
> Not sure if this is a good idea though.

It's a bit *nix-specific, I'd say (not that I'd care, I don't use
Amarok on Windows...).

I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).

Cheers
Jakob
_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

[Ben K-2]

Technically Windows supports symlinks too - at least on NTFS. I use them all the time on my windows box.

The ignore file sounds like a good way to go as it's an established method used successfully by other tools like svn and rsync.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Jakob Kummerow <jakob.kummerow@...> wrote:

> I suppose one thing that could be done (but isn't available now) is to
> put in a non-GUI option to have the scanner skip symlinks. Then you
> could keep the folders you don't want added outside of the main tree but
> symlink to them.
>
> Not sure if this is a good idea though.

It's a bit *nix-specific, I'd say (not that I'd care, I don't use
Amarok on Windows...).

I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).

Cheers
Jakob

_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Jakob Kummerow wrote:

>> I suppose one thing that could be done (but isn't available now) is to
>> put in a non-GUI option to have the scanner skip symlinks. Then you
>> could keep the folders you don't want added outside of the main tree but
>> symlink to them.
>>
>> Not sure if this is a good idea though.
>
> It's a bit *nix-specific, I'd say (not that I'd care, I don't use
> Amarok on Windows...).
> I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
> ".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
> such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
> portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
> files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
> command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
> thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).

Ooh. Not a bad idea. Similar to how we auto-detect UMS devices.

Pretty interested in the idea, although I need to think about whether it
might cause any regressions to do such a thing. I don't think so, offhand.

If I can't think of any, then look for this to make its way to a release
pretty soon...

--Jeff



_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

> I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
> ".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
> such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
> portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
> files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
> command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
> thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).

+1 for this idea.

I'd find this feature useful too.

Adding an option to the Filebrowser to "Hide a directory from the
scanner" would assist in creating this ignore files.

Casey
_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Casey Link <unnamedrambler@...> wrote:

>> I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
>> ".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
>> such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
>> portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
>> files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
>> command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
>> thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).
>
> +1 for this idea.
>
> I'd find this feature useful too.
>
> Adding an option to the Filebrowser to "Hide a directory from the
> scanner" would assist in creating this ignore files.

I like the idea too, but I would suggest not making it a "hidden
feature", but rather implementing a GUI dialog for this. Hidden
features are always problematic, in that they are... well, hidden, and
as such get little testing.

If we implement this feature, I think we should go all the way and do
it properly :)

--
Mark Kretschmann
Amarok Developer
www.kde.org - amarok.kde.org
_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Mark Kretschmann wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Casey Link <unnamedrambler@...> wrote:
>>> I think it would be better to have Amarok check for files named
>>> ".amarok_ignore" (or something similar) and skip folders that contain
>>> such a file. Maybe the dot should even be omitted for better
>>> portability, because last time I checked it was impossible to create
>>> files starting with a dot using Windows Explorer (you had to use the
>>> command prompt, but most Win users are scared senseless by the mere
>>> thought of that, and/or wouldn't think of the possibility).
>> +1 for this idea.
>>
>> I'd find this feature useful too.
>>
>> Adding an option to the Filebrowser to "Hide a directory from the
>> scanner" would assist in creating this ignore files.
>
> I like the idea too, but I would suggest not making it a "hidden
> feature", but rather implementing a GUI dialog for this. Hidden
> features are always problematic, in that they are... well, hidden, and
> as such get little testing.
>
> If we implement this feature, I think we should go all the way and do
> it properly :)

Sure. It would simply go in as a "hidden feature" first because I'd code
the backend part first :-)

The real question is what to call the file and whether it'd be hidden. I
have some ideas related to another project as far as what to call it. As
for whether it's hidden (i.e. starts with a dot) for Amarok users on
Windows they could do this within the collection setup directory, so
that partially eliminates that problem.

However, the thing I'd be more worried about is that people who aren't
really aware of how it works might not realize that a hidden file exists
in that directory and wonder why on earth Amarok isn't scanning that
directory.

The other thing to figure out is whether to make such exclusions
recursive or not. I would generally suggest yes, because people can then
individually add subfolders of such directories to the collection and
they would still be scanned (since they'd be passed as separate paths
into the scanner). But I'm interested in thoughts.

--Jeff



_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

[Jakob Kummerow]

> The real question is what to call the file and whether it'd be hidden. I
> have some ideas related to another project as far as what to call it. As
> for whether it's hidden (i.e. starts with a dot) for Amarok users on
> Windows they could do this within the collection setup directory, so
> that partially eliminates that problem.

True, if there's a GUI option for creating those files, the dot isn't
a problem any more.
Another thought: how about making the dot optional? Then (*nix) users
who like to hide such files can create ".amarok_ignore", whereas
Windows users can simply create "amarok_ignore", and both files fulfil
the same purpose.

> However, the thing I'd be more worried about is that people who aren't
> really aware of how it works might not realize that a hidden file exists
> in that directory and wonder why on earth Amarok isn't scanning that
> directory.

Good point. That means that the GUI option should create non-hidden
files. I can't think of any use case right now where such a file might
have negative side-effects.
I'd still suggest to support dotted files as well. Power users who
care can then hide the files, and they will (hopefully) remember that
they did so.
[This behaviour would perfectly match the general Robustness
Principle, "Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you
accept from others." ;-) ]

> The other thing to figure out is whether to make such exclusions
> recursive or not. I would generally suggest yes, because people can then
> individually add subfolders of such directories to the collection and
> they would still be scanned (since they'd be passed as separate paths
> into the scanner). But I'm interested in thoughts.

+1 for recursive. Makes the most sense, I'd say.


Jakob
_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

> > The other thing to figure out is whether to make such exclusions
> > recursive or not. I would generally suggest yes, because people can then
> > individually add subfolders of such directories to the collection and
> > they would still be scanned (since they'd be passed as separate paths
> > into the scanner). But I'm interested in thoughts.
>
> +1 for recursive. Makes the most sense, I'd say.

What about giving the choice on each excluded folder ?
It would be easy to write into the file something like "recursive=true/false",
and this way it would be possible for instance to exclude audio files located
directly in one's music folder without having to add all subfolders
individualy to the collection (which can be really long if there are a lot of
them).

--
Valentin Rouet


_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

Valentin Rouet wrote:

>>> The other thing to figure out is whether to make such exclusions
>>> recursive or not. I would generally suggest yes, because people can then
>>> individually add subfolders of such directories to the collection and
>>> they would still be scanned (since they'd be passed as separate paths
>>> into the scanner). But I'm interested in thoughts.
>> +1 for recursive. Makes the most sense, I'd say.
>
> What about giving the choice on each excluded folder ?
> It would be easy to write into the file something like "recursive=true/false",
> and this way it would be possible for instance to exclude audio files located
> directly in one's music folder without having to add all subfolders
> individualy to the collection (which can be really long if there are a lot of
> them).

I thought about that. I would make a claim (probably true in 99.99% of
all cases) that if you want to add all subfolders individually you
probably want the top level, and vice versa. And if not, that you should
really organize your music sensibly.

Doesn't mean I won't decide it's a good idea. What I'm more concerned
with, however, is the default. I think that by default, if there is no
recursion directive in the file, it should be recursive.

--Jeff



_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok

> Doesn't mean I won't decide it's a good idea. What I'm more concerned
> with, however, is the default. I think that by default, if there is no
> recursion directive in the file, it should be recursive.

I agree, I think it is the most logical behaviour.

--
Valentin Rouet


_______________________________________________
Amarok mailing list
Amarok@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok