search

jacquesh / foo_openlyrics

An open-source lyric display panel for foobar2000
MIT License
429 stars 24 forks source link

Deleted #168

Closed Rexadev closed 1 week ago

jacquesh commented 2 years ago

I've been meaning to add this to the issue template for a little while but hadn't gotten around to it until now:

If you'd like a new lyric source to be added, you must provide at least one example per source of a track whose lyrics are available on the new source but are not available on any existing sources. Each example must include an artist & track name, and must include an album name if it is part of an album. Album versions of tracks are preferred. If your example only applies to for a particular non-album version of a track (e.g a live or acoustic version), it may be disregarded.

Please can you update your issue accordingly

jacquesh commented 2 years ago

Well then post an example of that :)

The point of having requirements like this is that I have very limited time & energy to volunteer for work on openlyrics. There is one of me and many of you (the users), if I can reduce the amount of time I have to (or feel compelled to) spend on each suggestion in exchange for increasing the amount of time it takes for users to make suggestions then I'll take that trade-off every day of the week.

It also helps give some more information about how useful a given change would be, both to the person suggesting it and everybody else, which is important for prioritising which improvements to work on. On top of that, every time a feature is added, it becomes a little more difficult to add all future features (by virtue of the software being more complex overall). This is admittedly less true for sources than for other features but still applies.

Finally, to be honest, adding sources is not particularly high on my priority list in general, but that may change and it still helps regardless.

EDIT: Actually, #170 is a very good example of the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid :) Posting a ticket with no description communicates that the poster's level of investment in the idea is not even high enough to write more than a single sentence on the topic. If they don't want it badly enough to spend a minute motivating their request then unless its something I want myself, I'm certainly not going to spend the (in this case feasibly upwards of 10) hours required to implement the feature in the first place, and then maintain for the remainder of the lifetime of the software.