last week I got to talk lots of data visualization with loujine
2017-04-10 10057, 2017
Quesito
welcomed a bronze supporter!
2017-04-10 10022, 2017
iliekcomputers
woo $$$
2017-04-10 10028, 2017
iliekcomputers
:P
2017-04-10 10035, 2017
Quesito
and then started the long and winding road of invoicing and accounting with ruaok
2017-04-10 10038, 2017
ruaok
people left: yvanzo, Leftmost, who else?
2017-04-10 10042, 2017
ruaok
<3 Quesito
2017-04-10 10046, 2017
ferbncode
o/
2017-04-10 10003, 2017
Quesito
I am trying to implement a fixed quarterly billing cycle that follows the fiscal calendar. We’ve begun, and by reaching out to our supporters we’ve gotten some good and interesting feedback.
2017-04-10 10034, 2017
ruaok
this should reduce the work that needs to be done on this front.
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
Quesito
Thus far I'm at 50% up to speed....so still more work to be done
2017-04-10 10005, 2017
Quesito
yes! more work now--but sooooooo much less in the future! which is exciting
2017-04-10 10023, 2017
Leftmost
Ahh, programmers. Hours optimizing tasks that take five minutes. :)
2017-04-10 10034, 2017
Quesito
other notes--need to get back into web verbiage--it's getting close
was busy in organization of some events in the Technical Fest of our college.
2017-04-10 10009, 2017
ferbncode
thats all for me. fin :)
2017-04-10 10009, 2017
iliekcomputers won some money in that :P
2017-04-10 10037, 2017
yvanzo
hi there
2017-04-10 10042, 2017
yvanzo
Last week, I mostly worked on entity attributes, should be up for code review within this week. I wish we would get it live on test.musicbrainz.org during next week.
2017-04-10 10007, 2017
reosarevok
Yay, less ORM
2017-04-10 10015, 2017
yvanzo
That's all for reviews?
2017-04-10 10023, 2017
ruaok
I think so.
2017-04-10 10025, 2017
ruaok
anyone else?
2017-04-10 10028, 2017
reosarevok
unless someone of LordSputnik or alastairp wants in, I think so
2017-04-10 10031, 2017
loujine
ruaok: o/
2017-04-10 10034, 2017
reosarevok
Oh
2017-04-10 10034, 2017
reosarevok
Or that
2017-04-10 10038, 2017
ruaok
hi loujine ! go!
2017-04-10 10039, 2017
yvanzo
loujine: go :)
2017-04-10 10042, 2017
loujine
hi everyone
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
CatQuest
\o/
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
loujine
just a quick word
2017-04-10 10053, 2017
Quesito
hi!
2017-04-10 10009, 2017
loujine
after discussing with ruaok and Quesito I continued working on data visualizations with MB data
2017-04-10 10012, 2017
reosarevok
"expeditious"
2017-04-10 10014, 2017
loujine
but didn't do much
2017-04-10 10023, 2017
reosarevok
Oh, not that sort of quick word. Aww.
2017-04-10 10024, 2017
loujine
played a bit with d3js + python over the weekend
2017-04-10 10037, 2017
loujine
hope to show you something soon
2017-04-10 10040, 2017
reosarevok
When you have something cool, please put it on the forums too :)
2017-04-10 10043, 2017
loujine
that's all
2017-04-10 10048, 2017
loujine
sure
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
Quesito is excited!
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
reosarevok thinks a lot of people would be kind of excited
2017-04-10 10052, 2017
ruaok
looking forward to that!
2017-04-10 10056, 2017
reosarevok
see, like these two
2017-04-10 10003, 2017
ruaok
ok, onward, lets see if we can get through the topics this week.
I submitted a (half-finished, admittedly) PR for this a whiile ago
2017-04-10 10033, 2017
reosarevok
But chirlu really doesn't like the idea
2017-04-10 10043, 2017
reosarevok
So bitmap wanted to make sure whether we should just discard it or not
2017-04-10 10003, 2017
yvanzo
I second chirlu's opinion on this.
2017-04-10 10014, 2017
reosarevok
Basically, right now we show the artist sortname on hover if it doesn't match the name, *and* the name if it doesn't match the credit
2017-04-10 10027, 2017
reosarevok
And if both are the same, we show it twice. Which looks silly IMO
2017-04-10 10052, 2017
reosarevok
I'm not particularly attached to my PR, which is meh, but I'd really like us not to show the same string twice
2017-04-10 10006, 2017
reosarevok
(especially since we don't even explain anywhere that one's the name and the other the sortname)
2017-04-10 10030, 2017
ruaok
so, we have 1 meh, two against.
2017-04-10 10035, 2017
ruaok
anyone for?
2017-04-10 10038, 2017
CatQuest
showicng twice sounds weird if they''re the same
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
CatQuest is for
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
chirlu thinks it should, if changed, preferrably be simplified, not complicated.
2017-04-10 10000, 2017
CatQuest
yea
2017-04-10 10022, 2017
reosarevok
chirlu: agreed, but I just think showing only one extra "explanatory" string is better than two if the second provides no info
2017-04-10 10036, 2017
reosarevok
Again, I don't care much *how* we change this, it just feels very off to me as it is
2017-04-10 10036, 2017
Sophist-UK
Sorry I am late (again). Real life.
2017-04-10 10040, 2017
chirlu
But it makes the code more complicated, to little benefit.
2017-04-10 10006, 2017
ruaok
leaning towards rejecting the unmodified PR, then.
2017-04-10 10015, 2017
CatQuest
something something usability and profesionalistic apparent something
2017-04-10 10018, 2017
reosarevok
I think my favoured option would actually be to show both, *but* specify clearly one is name and one sortname, instead of making people guess, then
2017-04-10 10028, 2017
reosarevok
but bitmap didn't want to add more text to the pop-up
2017-04-10 10043, 2017
CatQuest
appearance*
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
reosarevok
(like, I'd do "Name: X, Sort name: Y" as hover)
2017-04-10 10004, 2017
bitmap
I'd be ok with adding labels, I guess
2017-04-10 10012, 2017
CatQuest
if sortname = name why show it though?
2017-04-10 10019, 2017
reosarevok
But I think ruaok really wants to move on, so I'm happy to say "drop the current PR, consider further on Jira"
2017-04-10 10020, 2017
bitmap
though I'm not sure how much this is going to help people
2017-04-10 10040, 2017
arbenina_ joined the channel
2017-04-10 10054, 2017
ruaok
reosarevok: +1
2017-04-10 10007, 2017
ruaok
there doesn't seem to be a strong set of feelings on this either way.
2017-04-10 10017, 2017
bitmap
+1 to "consider further on Jira" then
2017-04-10 10022, 2017
reosarevok
k
2017-04-10 10032, 2017
ruaok
so, refer to this IRC convo and reject PR for now.
2017-04-10 10043, 2017
ruaok
Sophist-UK: did you have a general update to get in?
2017-04-10 10022, 2017
ruaok
samj1912: onward to picard v2, if Sophist-UK wants to get in he can go after you.
2017-04-10 10026, 2017
ruaok
doubly so. :)
2017-04-10 10031, 2017
Sophist-UK
A quick summary:
2017-04-10 10054, 2017
Sophist-UK
Stopped work on the UI responsiveness PR - and will pick it up again on Py3 when I get the time.
2017-04-10 10029, 2017
samj1912
So, I wanted to ask the direction we want to take with picard v2 and wrt to plugins, as I have mentioned earlier, I would like for picard to be more modular and move more things to plugins and introduce more plugin hooks along with having officially maintained plugins
2017-04-10 10047, 2017
Sophist-UK
A couple of PRs to provide iTunes Movement tags support - 1 for master 1 for 1.4.x
2017-04-10 10056, 2017
Sophist-UK
A couple of tiny bugs fixed.
2017-04-10 10004, 2017
Sophist-UK
Not much compared to others.
2017-04-10 10017, 2017
samj1912
zas: Mineo bitmap Freso Sophist-UK ^^ thoughts?
2017-04-10 10023, 2017
ruaok
better than nothing at all, Sophist-UK. :)
2017-04-10 10025, 2017
ruaok
sorry samj1912.
2017-04-10 10051, 2017
ruaok
samj1912: have been been requesting more plugin hooks?
2017-04-10 10054, 2017
samj1912
and anyone else, if you want to chip in for that matter
2017-04-10 10017, 2017
samj1912
ruaok: not yet, but I want to make the core picard core more lean, so we would then need more plugin hooks
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
samj1912
this would also solve problems with picard having a cluttered UI, and complicated options page
2017-04-10 10053, 2017
ruaok
generally speaking, it is a better policy to add things after people ask for them, otherwise its work that may never be used.
2017-04-10 10057, 2017
CatQuest
I don't know how I feel about making "core" uses of picard plugin instead.. it might make some features horribly dated after a while..
2017-04-10 10003, 2017
CatQuest
core* = features
2017-04-10 10006, 2017
bitmap
not much thoughts from me, though I'd like to know which features you want moved to plugins
2017-04-10 10019, 2017
CatQuest
+1 bitmap
2017-04-10 10043, 2017
ruaok
samj1912: sounds like it might be good to do more planning on this and maybe toss out a google doc or wiki page with your thoughts?
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
zas
I think we need to be careful with this approach
2017-04-10 10005, 2017
CatQuest
yes
2017-04-10 10013, 2017
Sophist-UK
I think it comes down to putting the time into doing good design - both for new UI and for plugin hooks. The current plugin hooks have developed organically and it shows.
2017-04-10 10018, 2017
CatQuest
do some sort of survey on features people use and which peopel don't
2017-04-10 10032, 2017
Mineo
as I said yesterday, I fear this will lead to a plugin hook thing and a single plugin for each checkbox in the options, which is a bit meh
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
Sophist-UK
A lot meh!!
2017-04-10 10049, 2017
zas
I agree with Mineo on this
2017-04-10 10057, 2017
CatQuest
yes: you'll end with it being more features being mesy inteface instead
2017-04-10 10004, 2017
reosarevok
Well, moving something to be a plugin doesn't mean they won't be there, they can still be active by default (something like ASCII conversion makes 100% sense as a plugin, for example, IMO)
2017-04-10 10018, 2017
Quesito
this clearly needs more marination....
2017-04-10 10021, 2017
ruaok
ding.
2017-04-10 10027, 2017
CatQuest
and the plugins (which we don't controll as much) will amek the interface messy and clunky instead
2017-04-10 10042, 2017
ruaok
samj1912: think on this and then put your thoughts together somewhere for people to review for a future meeting.
2017-04-10 10045, 2017
CatQuest agrees with reosarevok and Quesito
2017-04-10 10047, 2017
reosarevok
CatQuest: I think the idea would be we still develop those plugins ourselves? But maybe I'm getting it wrong :)
