I was wondering what needs to happen now you've added those punctuation characters to the search server
2011-02-01 03243, 2011
ijabz
hi
2011-02-01 03210, 2011
ijabz
Well the search server code has to be rebuilt and released on test
2011-02-01 03249, 2011
nikki
ah, who usually does that?
2011-02-01 03257, 2011
ijabz
but I dont do that, I dont think this is enough of a change to bother doing that
2011-02-01 03216, 2011
ijabz
ocharles I think
2011-02-01 03239, 2011
nikki
and does that mean the live server won't get updated?
2011-02-01 03259, 2011
ppawel joined the channel
2011-02-01 03222, 2011
nikki
the problem is mostly that one of the guidelines got changed to allow punctuation like that, so quite a few people are being quite... vocal about it :/
2011-02-01 03238, 2011
nikki
I think it's probably more that they just don't like the characters in general, but having the search not treat them the same doesn't help matters
2011-02-01 03246, 2011
nikki
so I'm just trying to keep track of when things are likely to get updated. I can't make anyone do anything, after all :)
2011-02-01 03248, 2011
ijabz
Nikki, no Live will not get updated, I mean the whole codebase has changed and live still has the bigger problem of not decoding the freeedb index data correctly
2011-02-01 03209, 2011
nikki
ok
2011-02-01 03228, 2011
VectorX joined the channel
2011-02-01 03204, 2011
VectorX has left the channel
2011-02-01 03226, 2011
dinog1 joined the channel
2011-02-01 03204, 2011
ruaok joined the channel
2011-02-01 03233, 2011
ruaok checks in from MUC.
2011-02-01 03243, 2011
ruaok
I've got a couple of hours to kill. anyone need anything?
2011-02-01 03254, 2011
reosarevok wants gummy bears
2011-02-01 03259, 2011
reosarevok
But apart from that, not really
2011-02-01 03218, 2011
ruaok passes the bag of bears around again.
2011-02-01 03201, 2011
dinog joined the channel
2011-02-01 03259, 2011
ruaok joined the channel
2011-02-01 03228, 2011
nikki
hmm...
2011-02-01 03209, 2011
ruaok
yeeees?
2011-02-01 03230, 2011
nikki
in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/5491 navap suggested using [[Page_Name]] instead of [Page_Name] in edit notes to link to the documentation pages... but is there a way we could do that without breaking all the old notes?
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
warp
garrr
2011-02-01 03212, 2011
warp
test is giving internal server error
2011-02-01 03212, 2011
nikki
hi warp!
2011-02-01 03233, 2011
ruaok
nikki: not sure. we could convert the old notes in the NGS conversion.
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
nikki
'cause if we allow spaces like the ticket suggests, I think that would end up turning things like "I think you should use [Some Unofficial Name]" into a link to the docs, which it shouldn't, since we use square brackets for special purpose stuff
2011-02-01 03201, 2011
nikki
(if that bit made sense...)
2011-02-01 03237, 2011
ruaok
it does.
2011-02-01 03255, 2011
ruaok
ffs.
2011-02-01 03208, 2011
ruaok
I passed through TWO security checkpoints already.
2011-02-01 03219, 2011
ruaok
and now a team of people rolled in for a THIRD one.
2011-02-01 03229, 2011
ruaok
fucking security theater!
2011-02-01 03214, 2011
ijabz
in NGS is a recording always associated with at least one release or not ?
2011-02-01 03237, 2011
nikki
no
2011-02-01 03200, 2011
nikki
non-album tracks are converted into standalone recordings, which are recordings not linked to a release
That reminds me. Is it technically feasible for NGS to somehow make Picard believe that a standalone recording is a 1-track release?
2011-02-01 03256, 2011
reosarevok has no idea how info goes from MB to Picard
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
ijabz
BUt what I don't quite get is if Ollie releases that recording on an album at some point in the future it will then become linked to a release, but does that then mean we lost the fact that it was once a standalone recording
2011-02-01 03237, 2011
reosarevok
ijabz: well, we lose the fact that a track has been a NAT in Mason
2011-02-01 03246, 2011
reosarevok
When it is released
2011-02-01 03250, 2011
reosarevok
So no change there
2011-02-01 03224, 2011
reosarevok
(well, yeah, the change that we don't lose all the ARs and have to enter them again)
2011-02-01 03252, 2011
nikki
and we don't lose the mbids either
2011-02-01 03232, 2011
ocharles
I'm not sure whether there's much sense in recording that "this was once a standalone track"
2011-02-01 03238, 2011
ocharles
do you gain much from that?
2011-02-01 03244, 2011
nikki doesn't think so
2011-02-01 03252, 2011
ijabz
prob not, just trying to understand
2011-02-01 03211, 2011
nikki
we can already create one-track digital releases if we want to think of the online track as a proper release
nikki, that was more my thinking, so they are put into their own release are they
2011-02-01 03253, 2011
ocharles
that mentions that html is by default ignored
2011-02-01 03259, 2011
reosarevok
ijabz: yeah
2011-02-01 03209, 2011
reosarevok
ijabz: you can just add a 1-track digital single
2011-02-01 03217, 2011
ocharles
warp: or perldoc Catalyst::Plugin::Static::Simple if you're saving bandwidth ;)
2011-02-01 03219, 2011
reosarevok
which is a single release
2011-02-01 03226, 2011
warp
ocharles: yes, I know Catalyst::Plugin::Static::Simple is ignoring .html by default, but I cannot figure out how to make it stop doing that.
2011-02-01 03241, 2011
ocharles
you just stuff ignore_extensions => [] into the config
2011-02-01 03242, 2011
ocharles
one sec
2011-02-01 03259, 2011
ijabz
So you just dont do that when the sonh has'n't been released/made available publicly
2011-02-01 03222, 2011
ocharles
warp: add to __PACKAGE__->config (MB::S line 45): static => { ignore_extensions => [] }
2011-02-01 03227, 2011
warp
ocharles: I already tried setting a new value in lib/MusicBrainz/Server.pm. tried ignore_extensions => [ ] and ignore_extensions => [ qw/php/ ] (just in case it would consider an empty list as a falsy value).
2011-02-01 03229, 2011
nikki
ijabz: although whether people do that depends on whether it seems like a proper release, there are plenty of cases where it would be really weird to call something that's currently a non-album track a digital single
2011-02-01 03249, 2011
ocharles
warp: you have to put it in static => {} inside the config
2011-02-01 03247, 2011
warp
ok, I'll do that again.
2011-02-01 03206, 2011
warp
ocharles: still 500.
2011-02-01 03214, 2011
ocharles
warp: i'll try then
2011-02-01 03219, 2011
ijabz
Say a band put a song on their website available to download, but it is not actually a single what would u do
2011-02-01 03221, 2011
reosarevok
ijabz: normally, I add a track that is for sale as a single. A track in Bandcamp -> single. A track in a less final-user-oriented site, like Soundcloud -> NAT
warp: speaking of email, did you get the email about watching the servers tonight?
2011-02-01 03233, 2011
ruaok
oh fuck.
2011-02-01 03251, 2011
ruaok
do we really want to do this before NGS?
2011-02-01 03203, 2011
ocharles
test has been running it for a week now and while we did have bizzare hiccups, it's been for 4 days since
2011-02-01 03212, 2011
ocharles
ruaok: the changes are mostly variable renaming
2011-02-01 03223, 2011
warp
if it's the acid2/test-routine stuff I veto.
2011-02-01 03225, 2011
warp
:)
2011-02-01 03234, 2011
ruaok
warp: yes.
2011-02-01 03246, 2011
ruaok
are kidding about that?
2011-02-01 03248, 2011
ocharles
The one thing that does change is that now we connect once, and only once, and pass the same dbh around. I think I may change that to pass a DBIx::Connector around. This means that every query will do a ping on the dbh first, but it will try and reconnect if it fails
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
ocharles
that's pretty much exactly what it was doing before (except it might ping once if there are 3 transactions coming up)
2011-02-01 03216, 2011
warp
ruaok: yes, I'm tethered though so cannot do much watching. but I am near computers all day.
warp: I would love to get your feedback about ocharles test stuff too. when you have a chance to review/whatnot.
2011-02-01 03255, 2011
warp
ruaok: not kidding. test-routine introduces the weird redirect bug I've been fighting last week. I don't want that stuff in master until we know what that is.
2011-02-01 03216, 2011
ruaok
ah!
2011-02-01 03249, 2011
ocharles
if you can try and trace that today I'd really appreciate it, because I can't reproduce on any of my machines
2011-02-01 03214, 2011
ruaok
ok, if its introduced crazy bugs that have already caused us to lose many hours hacking, I would really prefer to wait with these changes til post NGS.
2011-02-01 03221, 2011
ruaok
we need stability now, not crazyness.
2011-02-01 03230, 2011
warp
yes. I just put up my guess case stuff on code review. I'll start stepping when I'm going offline again in a few minutes.
2011-02-01 03234, 2011
ocharles
this is for stability so I can actually run the test
2011-02-01 03236, 2011
ocharles
+s
2011-02-01 03243, 2011
ocharles
as it stands now half of them just fail
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
warp
ruaok: in general the goal of the patch sounds very good, so I'm not opposed to having that in for NGS. just need to find that bug.
2011-02-01 03205, 2011
ocharles
but I understand the reservations, for sure
2011-02-01 03226, 2011
ocharles
warp: and see if that bug really is introduced by my direct changes, or not something latent that's just come to surface
2011-02-01 03245, 2011
ruaok
ok, lets compare notes on this again tomorrow.
2011-02-01 03248, 2011
warp
ocharles: how should I go about debugging this again?
