Replies: 4 comments 2 replies
-
|
Kind of related: #24 (comment) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Fantastic writeup, thank you! 👍 I responded to #25 that I am considering to merge Just not sure about merging Anyways, your ideas give me lots to think about. Let me ponder on this over the weekend with fresh brain cells :) Appreciate the effort! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Alright, I have thought a lot about this, and I like it very much. I will prioritize this before anything else. Already have a full documentation in my Linear. What I will do:
What I am considering for the same release, or ship in a later point release:
What I won't do right now:
The only thing I am not sure about yet if I should keep the old stuff around for backwards compatibility for a while (with deprecation warnings when old commands are used). Would be trivial to do, but a nightmare to maintain when I add new features. Given how young the project is and that there are only few users, I am leaning towards doing a hard cut. Either way, this will be the 8.0 release. Looking forward to start working on it :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Most of this is now live in v8.0.0. Let me know what you think :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
There are now several commands (
-scan,-inspect,-convert,-batch) that share some options, but not others, and I think generally might be streamlined into one.If you think about it...:
-batchisn't all that different from-convert, except that it auto-finds files and recurses sub-directories;-convertand-batchalso do what-scandoes;-inspectisn't much different from-scan, except that it does "deeper" analysis on a single file only.IMO, there are just two modes in the end:
I wonder if there should be only two commands for basically all operations.
There's also the issue of the commands and their options both using a single
-, which I think will eventually make both the code and the UX a little messy.What it could look like
Let's say the commands were "simple words", options with arguments used single letters and single dashes, and flags used double dashes, like most UNIX programs do it. FFmpeg isn't a good example to follow since their options are basically a processing language and operations happen in sequence. That's also why e.g. the UNIX
findcommand is so "weird" with its single dash commands - it can perform steps in order.Conversion
Convert multiple files:
dovi_convert convert *.mkvConvert multiple files, and ask for confirmation for Simple FELs:
dovi_convert convert --include-simple *.mkvConvert multiple files, and force all simple FELs to be converted without confirmation:
dovi_convert convert --include-simple --force *.mkvConvert multiple files, and auto-include all simple FELs where the verdict was "safe to convert" after inspection:
dovi_convert convert --include-simple --inspect-simple *.mkvConvert everything recursively (like
-batchdoes right now), with a confirmation prompt before starting (because directories were given where it searched for.mkvfiles):dovi_convert convert -r Dir1/ Dir2/Convert everything in
Downloads/recursively, and move even non-candidates that are already P8 to theMyLibrary/output directory:dovi_convert convert --move-all -r Downloads/ -o MyLibrary/(this would be enough to allow #24 to be implemented by the user with a simple
watchexecsetup)Scanning/Inspection
Scan the current folder and output each file's result:
dovi_convert scan .List only candidates among the given files:
dovi_convert scan *.mkv --candidates-onlyScan the given folders, and inspect Simple FELs that are encountered:
dovi_convert scan --inspect-simple Dir1/ Dir2/List only candidates among the given files, with Simple FEL inspection verdicts:
dovi_convert scan *.mkv --inspect-simple --candidates-onlyBeta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions