GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 608781
Skip in Shuffle by Artist/Album should only skip track, not the whole Artist/Album
Last modified: 2011-09-20 13:15:42 UTC
When shuffling by artist or album (possibly others, too), there's no way to skip just the current track instead of the whole artist / album. The default behavior of the skip button shouldn't change, IMO. It should always just skip to the next track and only change to a next random album / artist if the current set ended. Along with bug #608778 this causes that there's no way to skip a song within an album.
Created attachment 155296 [details] [review] Don't skip to next album/artist when shuffling The attached patch should fix it. However, I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. The current behaviour is intentional, see this [1] commit. Also, if this patch is committed, there will be no easy way to skip to the next album/artist (apart from hitting "Next" X times). If you are shuffling by album, the probability of you wanting to skip the album after hearing its first song is much higher than the probability of you wanting to skip just one song after hearing one or more songs from the same album. The same is true for shuffle by artist. That's what these shuffle modes are about, you want to hear an *entire* album or the *entire* collection of an artist. So, in my opinion things should be left as is. If you want linear progression you can use the play queue with "Fill by album/artist" switched on. I don't see how this bug can be fixed without confusing users with two different "Next" behaviours or crippling the shuffle functionality by removing the ability to skip to the next album/artist. [1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/banshee/commit/?id=9013c59b15cbd5c3f0a3981984243f00179fc8e6
I agree (not surprising, since I wrote the current behavior). You could always jump-to-playing-song and then click the next one in the list you want to hear, to skip just one (or a couple) songs in the album. Alexander, did you mean to mark this bug as dependent on bug #608778? I don't see why it would be dependent on this one. But it being fixed would let you do the above work-around for this one.
OK then, it's just that I found it a bit confusing, bug #608778 stands regardless.
*** Bug 623676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 659227 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***