I'd still like to use the terminology Cover Version and Remix for popular music
2010-03-24 08333, 2010
luks
I think it's not that bad to bring the terminology as close to the target genre as possible
2010-03-24 08355, 2010
luks
if there is different terminology in different genres, use different terminology
2010-03-24 08308, 2010
brianfreud
That was my point... There isn't any such concept, though, at the compositional data level, as "cover", only derivative works. To 'cover' some song involves a performance action, hence its a performance level data. That is true regardless of genre.
2010-03-24 08331, 2010
brianfreud
a 'cover' is even defined something like 'the performance of a song made famous by someone else'
2010-03-24 08338, 2010
luks
yes of course
2010-03-24 08349, 2010
luks
but if you think of works as songs then Cover makes sense
2010-03-24 08338, 2010
luks
that breaks for electronic music done completely on computers
2010-03-24 08353, 2010
luks
as there is usually no separation between composition, arrangement and performance
2010-03-24 08310, 2010
luks
well
2010-03-24 08319, 2010
luks
there is
2010-03-24 08326, 2010
luks
but there is no explicit performance
2010-03-24 08335, 2010
luks
btw, normally when I say something like 'that cover of X by Y' I refer to the arrangement, not a specific performance
2010-03-24 08341, 2010
luks
so I think the terminology is not that wrong
2010-03-24 08357, 2010
luks
but it can be english issue :)
2010-03-24 08304, 2010
brianfreud
lol
2010-03-24 08338, 2010
brianfreud
I get what you mean; I just see it as the inevitable inferrence from a type of intersection between work and track
2010-03-24 08311, 2010
brianfreud
what I wouldn't want to see, though, is someone then misunderstand what you mean, and add a new work every time someone covers a song, even if it is unchanged/reduced/etc. Then we just end up with a list of songs played by some artist,, where that *should* (imho) be linked back to the same original song, not some new song linked by 1+ levels of "work is a cover version of work"
2010-03-24 08358, 2010
brianfreud
murdos: ping?
2010-03-24 08315, 2010
luks
I think we don't have to worry about that :)
2010-03-24 08335, 2010
luks
we will need to ask people to *add* works, not the other way around
2010-03-24 08318, 2010
brianfreud
:P
2010-03-24 08308, 2010
luks
there will be huge confusing about recordings too
2010-03-24 08315, 2010
luks
what to merge and what not
2010-03-24 08328, 2010
luks
*confusion
2010-03-24 08312, 2010
brianfreud
too true
2010-03-24 08323, 2010
navap
Don't worry, there will probably be a hastily written unofficial guideline the day before the server launch - just like what happened to the release groups guideline :p
2010-03-24 08339, 2010
brianfreud is REALLY happy to see murdos is still active on MBS-631
2010-03-24 08303, 2010
brianfreud
navap: or the user tags guideline that somehow just died, and was axed today? :D
2010-03-24 08341, 2010
navap
You can't screw up a tag, for numerous different reasons.
If you referring to the tag usage, I disagree. I think folksonomy tags are meant to be undefined and left to the user to define when and where to use them.
2010-03-24 08330, 2010
luks
yeah
2010-03-24 08349, 2010
luks
you can do whatever you want with tags
2010-03-24 08354, 2010
luks
but "rock_pop rock_rock_pop rock_rock_pop rock_rock" is just stupid
2010-03-24 08311, 2010
navap
That's a "special case" done by a "special person" :p
2010-03-24 08341, 2010
navap
And it really only becomes a problem when searching for tags, which can easily be fixed by tweaking the search server.
2010-03-24 08349, 2010
brianfreud pushes effort to get rock_rock_rock_rock_rock_rock_rock into the top 10 tags
2010-03-24 08351, 2010
aCiD2
qlol
2010-03-24 08331, 2010
brianfreud
Dumb question, maybe, but re: MBS-221, why should the Entity:URL even *have* to know the linktype?
2010-03-24 08331, 2010
aCiD2
hrm, those are interesting tags
2010-03-24 08350, 2010
aCiD2
brianfreud: it doesn't, that's why I left my comment
2010-03-24 08353, 2010
aCiD2
if you're on about the review
2010-03-24 08303, 2010
brianfreud
yeah
2010-03-24 08328, 2010
brianfreud
if the prettyname is just the pagename from the URL (perhaps then cleaned up by a post prettyname parser), I don't see why it should care why link type the URL represents
2010-03-24 08333, 2010
aCiD2
it doesn't
2010-03-24 08349, 2010
aCiD2
it's just using the link type as warp did is an easy way. but subclassing as I said is a bit more flexible
2010-03-24 08316, 2010
brianfreud
yeah
2010-03-24 08321, 2010
aCiD2
it's not a case of using a regex and a parser, that's just as bad as the linktype solution
2010-03-24 08346, 2010
warp
aCiD2: I just submitted a new review in case you haven't seen that yet.
2010-03-24 08348, 2010
brianfreud
I was thinking url.url would populate url.pagename, which could then be handed to that subclassed handler to get url.prettyname
2010-03-24 08355, 2010
aCiD2
oo, i just got back from dinner
2010-03-24 08357, 2010
aCiD2
i'll check it out
2010-03-24 08307, 2010
aCiD2
brianfreud: sure, if you assume that's the only way you'll ever want to do it
2010-03-24 08319, 2010
brianfreud
well, that's why I was separating prettyname and pagename
2010-03-24 08322, 2010
aCiD2
but I can see future cases of something like idmb.com/<foo> display as IMDB: Film Name
2010-03-24 08328, 2010
warp
aCiD2: it's still ugly IMO, but there now is an URL::Wikipedia
2010-03-24 08329, 2010
aCiD2
a parser can't do that
2010-03-24 08322, 2010
aCiD2
why the changes to link_entity?
2010-03-24 08332, 2010
aCiD2
actually nvm, that's much nicer :)
2010-03-24 08334, 2010
brianfreud wonders how hard it would be to add an optional date field and optional generic string field to URL AR handling
2010-03-24 08343, 2010
warp
aCiD2: type.search doesn't match subtypes of URL::
of course, I don't see any other way yet - but this is a bit ickier than I first imagined it to be
2010-03-24 08330, 2010
aCiD2
I don't think linktype_to_model belongs in Data::Utils
2010-03-24 08345, 2010
aCiD2
that belongs in Data::Relationship probably
2010-03-24 08349, 2010
warp
ah, right.
2010-03-24 08352, 2010
aCiD2
Actually
2010-03-24 08309, 2010
aCiD2
We should probably have a URL factory, and that works out what type of URL subclass to use based on some sort of regex on the URL
2010-03-24 08316, 2010
aCiD2
god damnit, someone give me a java job
2010-03-24 08326, 2010
warp
I like factories.
2010-03-24 08329, 2010
aCiD2
:)
2010-03-24 08330, 2010
warp
they make things.
2010-03-24 08347, 2010
aCiD2
can you make it an enterprise abstract factory factory factory?
2010-03-24 08305, 2010
warp
aCiD2: the good thing about a factory would be that the linktype doesn't need to be passed around
2010-03-24 08311, 2010
aCiD2
si
2010-03-24 08323, 2010
aCiD2
plus it works in the case when you don't even have a link type (like url/<gid>)
2010-03-24 08336, 2010
warp
aCiD2: but having a big switch statement dropping through dozens of regexes to find the correct entity sounds pretty bad too.
2010-03-24 08308, 2010
aCiD2
so have that be dynamic. The factory can load everything in the URL:: namespace with Module::Pluggable::Object, and each URL::* object can store the regex
2010-03-24 08327, 2010
warp
(or they register themselves and the factory tries them all)
2010-03-24 08336, 2010
aCiD2
the url factory can then cache that in a Map[RegexRef, ClassName]
2010-03-24 08340, 2010
luks
it's one, exactly one regex :)
2010-03-24 08347, 2010
luks
not a few dozens
2010-03-24 08304, 2010
luks
I wouldn't spend two days on something like this
2010-03-24 08308, 2010
warp
luks: now. yes. but I expect we'll add amazon, imdb, and many more in the future.
2010-03-24 08315, 2010
warp
luks: true.
2010-03-24 08323, 2010
luks
only I have nothing else to do
2010-03-24 08329, 2010
luks
which I guess isn't the case
2010-03-24 08322, 2010
luks
you wanted to go agile? YAGNI
2010-03-24 08347, 2010
aCiD2
yagni doesn't mean use a bad design
2010-03-24 08353, 2010
aCiD2
a url should not depend on a link type to have a pretty name
2010-03-24 08333, 2010
luks
I totally support good design
2010-03-24 08346, 2010
aCiD2
so the switch in the url factory would suffice in this case and when that gets unwieldy then we stick module::pluggable in and make it a bit more dynmaci
2010-03-24 08347, 2010
luks
but if I have lots of more important things to do
2010-03-24 08354, 2010
luks
a single if will not kill me
2010-03-24 08357, 2010
warp
aCiD2: anyway, do you have time / interest in taking this over? I'd rather not spend more time on this ticket.
2010-03-24 08302, 2010
aCiD2
sure
2010-03-24 08316, 2010
warp
yay. I'll assign the ticket to you then. thanks!
2010-03-24 08318, 2010
aCiD2
push that branch out and reassign the ticket to me with a comment when you get a chance
2010-03-24 08324, 2010
warp
will do.
2010-03-24 08341, 2010
aCiD2 goes back to wondering why this migrated edit type think the release is in a completely different release group
2010-03-24 08301, 2010
brianfreud
it's lonely
2010-03-24 08316, 2010
aCiD2
if it's lonely it should go to mozart, not some random NAT release group
2010-03-24 08320, 2010
aCiD2
:P
2010-03-24 08326, 2010
navap
haha
2010-03-24 08301, 2010
aCiD2
luks: a MOD_ADD_RELEASE edit has the added release in row_id. This could change after ngs-merge-releases - but surely I should be able to resolve the correct ID through tmp_merge_release, right?
2010-03-24 08314, 2010
luks
yes
2010-03-24 08326, 2010
luks
row_id goes to edit_release
2010-03-24 08343, 2010
luks
it's used for looking up edits
2010-03-24 08321, 2010
luks
maybe there were bugs and the row_ids will not resolve
2010-03-24 08330, 2010
luks
some of them
2010-03-24 08344, 2010
warp
lol
2010-03-24 08358, 2010
aCiD2
hrm, then I don't get why SELECT release_group FROM release WHERE id IN (SELECT new_rel FROM tmp_release_merge WHERE id = <old_id>) is giving the wrong release group
2010-03-24 08319, 2010
aCiD2
I've confirmed <old_id> to be the correct row ID on the old database (select * from album where id=<old_id> gives the correct release)
2010-03-24 08321, 2010
luks
is the release group totally wrong or something possibly related?
I think it's because the correct release group was merged later
2010-03-24 08329, 2010
aCiD2 keeps poking
2010-03-24 08354, 2010
luks
which is why I asked if they can be related
2010-03-24 08307, 2010
luks
check the result of the subselect first
2010-03-24 08324, 2010
aCiD2
that's empty, so I just use <old_id> (that was pseudo sql)
2010-03-24 08321, 2010
luks
I think tmp_release_merge are actually release event IDs
2010-03-24 08336, 2010
aCiD2
ah..
2010-03-24 08337, 2010
brianfreud
acid2: Re MBS-612; For release-URL and http://www.imdb.com*, has IMDb page at is prob a lot more likely than the samples from IMDb AR; otherwise, looks good
2010-03-24 08341, 2010
luks
my memory is really bad
2010-03-24 08354, 2010
luks
I don't remember how does the upgrade process work
2010-03-24 08326, 2010
aCiD2
brianfreud: oh, that was just a random example - that probably won't ever happen as it requires querying IMDB too and caching it somewhere so it's more work
