#musicbrainz-devel

/

      • voiceinsideyou joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18201, 2011

      • warp joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18233, 2011

      • Batsy
        warp and/or ocharles if you're around: data::utils::query_to_list_limited is used by data::release::find_by_artist and it returns results in ascending order by date, so when I limit it to three I get the three oldest releases. I want the three most recent releases without querying the database more than once (in order to calculate the offset).
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • Batsy
        any suggestions for a more efficient way to either calculate the offset I'd need or to have it spit out releases in descending order?
      • 2011-07-01 18257, 2011

      • Batsy
        kl;nk
      • 2011-07-01 18215, 2011

      • Batsy
        (and that's why you don't leave the laptop open on the floor when you let the dogs in)
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • Batsy joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18221, 2011

      • bitmap
        nikki: when you have time, I'd appreciate if you could look at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Bitmap/Multiple_…
      • 2011-07-01 18215, 2011

      • bitmap
        just to sanity check things :)
      • 2011-07-01 18201, 2011

      • nikki
        luks: I already tried google's dns servers in resolv.conf :( I think it's a problem with vmware since I don't have any problems in osx itself, only in the vm
      • 2011-07-01 18254, 2011

      • nikki
        bitmap: I'd probably say "if the recording artists vary, enter each one separated by " / " in the artist credit"
      • 2011-07-01 18203, 2011

      • nikki
        the page wrapped it after the dash and confused me at first
      • 2011-07-01 18210, 2011

      • nikki
        oh... with the order bit included I guess
      • 2011-07-01 18235, 2011

      • bitmap
        nikki: thanks, that reads a bit better
      • 2011-07-01 18237, 2011

      • bitmap
        "if the recording artists vary, enter each one separated by " / " in the artist credit (in the order their songs appear)."
      • 2011-07-01 18251, 2011

      • nikki
        yeah, I like that more
      • 2011-07-01 18253, 2011

      • bitmap
        I doubt anyone would have a reason to enter them out of order, but you never know...
      • 2011-07-01 18216, 2011

      • nikki
        someone somewhere would probably try and put them alphabetically :P
      • 2011-07-01 18238, 2011

      • nikki
        and everyone else would be like "what? why? ;_;"
      • 2011-07-01 18258, 2011

      • bitmap
        lol, I wouldn't be surprised
      • 2011-07-01 18221, 2011

      • dinog joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18207, 2011

      • ijabz joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18233, 2011

      • ruaok joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18240, 2011

      • ruaok
        anyone awake?
      • 2011-07-01 18246, 2011

      • nikki
        hi
      • 2011-07-01 18223, 2011

      • ruaok
        "I officially support Robert's suggestion for cover-art via the Internet
      • 2011-07-01 18230, 2011

      • ruaok
        Archive." Cory
      • 2011-07-01 18235, 2011

      • nikki
        \o/
      • 2011-07-01 18248, 2011

      • ruaok
        that is the last director chiming in.
      • 2011-07-01 18201, 2011

      • ruaok
        now I need to hold an official vote, bute we know how that will go.
      • 2011-07-01 18209, 2011

      • ruaok
        please share the news with folks.
      • 2011-07-01 18230, 2011

      • ruaok
        (unofficially, of course)
      • 2011-07-01 18237, 2011

      • nikki
        ok :)
      • 2011-07-01 18248, 2011

      • bitmap
        that's awesome news!
      • 2011-07-01 18256, 2011

      • bitmap
        now I *really* need to buy a scanner
      • 2011-07-01 18259, 2011

      • ruaok
        ruaok has changed the topic to: How does one design a cover art archive where the images never pass through MusicBrainz? How would you do it without running *any* services at the archive?
      • 2011-07-01 18217, 2011

      • ruaok
        bitmap: scanning not needed.
      • 2011-07-01 18225, 2011

      • ruaok
        we're allowed to submit any images from anywhere.
      • 2011-07-01 18202, 2011

      • bitmap
        ruaok: I'd like to scan my own stuff too though :)
      • 2011-07-01 18215, 2011

      • ruaok
        oh, ok.
      • 2011-07-01 18223, 2011

      • ruaok
        that's allowed. :) but not required.
      • 2011-07-01 18248, 2011

      • bitmap
        mainly for old vinyl releases that don't have scans on Discogs/etc.
      • 2011-07-01 18201, 2011

      • nikki has a scanner and just needs to work out how to use it :P
      • 2011-07-01 18209, 2011

      • bitmap
        hehe
      • 2011-07-01 18228, 2011

      • nikki
        I have lots of saved scans from various sites though
      • 2011-07-01 18216, 2011

      • bitmap
        I have a giant folder of images I stole from ebay
      • 2011-07-01 18224, 2011

      • nikki
        haha
      • 2011-07-01 18241, 2011

      • nikki
        I have a gigantic folder too, but it's a complete mess since I just dump everything in there
      • 2011-07-01 18257, 2011

      • nikki
        and I'm always saving stuff that looks interesting
      • 2011-07-01 18225, 2011

      • bitmap
        I doubt it's less organized than mine :P the image names are still like $(KGrXqMOKjUr2zMhJN-WBN2w24V+-w~~_12.JPG and there are hardly any sub folders
      • 2011-07-01 18238, 2011

      • bitmap
        I really need to clean it up...
      • 2011-07-01 18243, 2011

      • nikki
        heh
      • 2011-07-01 18213, 2011

      • ruaok
        ok, I should go.
      • 2011-07-01 18220, 2011

      • ruaok
        long drive to get to the desert tomorrow.
      • 2011-07-01 18223, 2011

      • ruaok
        dus awaits!
      • 2011-07-01 18227, 2011

      • ruaok
        dust!
      • 2011-07-01 18234, 2011

      • ruaok
        awaft!
      • 2011-07-01 18243, 2011

      • nikki
        have fun!
      • 2011-07-01 18245, 2011

      • nikki
        bah
      • 2011-07-01 18203, 2011

      • warp
        안녕하세요!
      • 2011-07-01 18254, 2011

      • ijabz joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18218, 2011

      • reosarevok joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18231, 2011

      • adhawkins joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18211, 2011

      • ppawel joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18203, 2011

      • ijabz joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18228, 2011

      • ijabz joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18218, 2011

      • pecastro joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18211, 2011

      • ocharles
        warp: I could really do with smoke emails still
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • ocharles
        we're at 57%!
      • 2011-07-01 18228, 2011

      • warp
        oh, right. that still doesn't work.
      • 2011-07-01 18244, 2011

      • nikki
        ocharles: I don't suppose you can find out whether this cover art script is actually running, can you?
      • 2011-07-01 18231, 2011

      • ocharles
        nikki: I'll look into it later today
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • nikki
        'cause it's been over 6 weeks and I haven't seen any evidence of it working :/
      • 2011-07-01 18254, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: I've changed something and am now running the master tests. perhaps it will work.
      • 2011-07-01 18252, 2011

      • ocharles
        cool
      • 2011-07-01 18230, 2011

      • reosarevok joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18207, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: no, it's not working.
      • 2011-07-01 18236, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: Smolder uses "MIME::Lite" to send mail to an SMTPHost, and I don't know how to correctly specify the envelope sender.
      • 2011-07-01 18258, 2011

      • warp
        my $data = clone($self->value);
      • 2011-07-01 18259, 2011

      • warp
        data => clone($data),
      • 2011-07-01 18206, 2011

      • warp
        heh, that seems a bit overzealous.
      • 2011-07-01 18216, 2011

      • ocharles
        heh
      • 2011-07-01 18206, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: btw, if you want to have a look at the smolder stuff yourself:
      • 2011-07-01 18223, 2011

      • warp
        /home/smolder/.smolder/smolder.log contains the error message / exception
      • 2011-07-01 18238, 2011

      • ocharles
        cool
      • 2011-07-01 18244, 2011

      • warp
        and you can do a "git diff" in /home/smolder/opt/Smolder to see my attempt to fix it
      • 2011-07-01 18244, 2011

      • ocharles
        will have a look at it next week
      • 2011-07-01 18200, 2011

      • warp
        ok
      • 2011-07-01 18211, 2011

      • ocharles
        warp, ijabz: do you know how I can add an attribute in the relaxng schema that uses the data type in def_incomplete-date?
      • 2011-07-01 18246, 2011

      • warp
        no
      • 2011-07-01 18247, 2011

      • ocharles
      • 2011-07-01 18224, 2011

      • warp doesn't do much schema writing :)
      • 2011-07-01 18236, 2011

      • ocharles
        hrm, I'll just copy pasta the data section into it
      • 2011-07-01 18246, 2011

      • ocharles
        ah, <ref>
      • 2011-07-01 18239, 2011

      • warp
        yay, git checkout has an --interactive equivalent.
      • 2011-07-01 18217, 2011

      • ocharles
        nice, I didn't know that
      • 2011-07-01 18222, 2011

      • warp
        git checkout --patch
      • 2011-07-01 18207, 2011

      • ocharles
        ah, same as git add -p
      • 2011-07-01 18222, 2011

      • ocharles
        (--patch)
      • 2011-07-01 18229, 2011

      • warp
        oh right.
      • 2011-07-01 18246, 2011

      • warp
        I should probably use that instead of '--interactive' then
      • 2011-07-01 18256, 2011

      • ocharles
        interactive is nice for remembering to add new files too
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • MBChatLogger
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • ocharles
        bitmap: first-release-date stuff is on test.mb.org now, if you can have a look at it and see if it what's you want
      • 2011-07-01 18226, 2011

      • bitmap
        ocharles: cool, thanks!
      • 2011-07-01 18220, 2011

      • bitmap
        ocharles: yes, that works perfectly.
      • 2011-07-01 18246, 2011

      • voiceinsideyou joined the channel
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • bitmap
        wonderful, I have to figure out how to appease a bunch of mb-style people
      • 2011-07-01 18210, 2011

      • warp
        oh noez
      • 2011-07-01 18215, 2011

      • nikki
        fun
      • 2011-07-01 18216, 2011

      • bitmap
        people have developed a very strong aversion to the word "track" it seems...
      • 2011-07-01 18200, 2011

      • warp
        well, you're talking about a relationship, right? a relationship in musicbrainz can no longer link to a track, it links to the recording.
      • 2011-07-01 18241, 2011

      • bitmap
        warp: understood, but I think it makes sense as a synonym in certain places
      • 2011-07-01 18226, 2011

      • warp
        bitmap: in some places, yes. but in most places it would probably be confusing, because we do have both in the database and they're distinct things.
      • 2011-07-01 18211, 2011

      • warp
        bitmap: I haven't looked at your proposal, so I haven't seen how you're using it :)
      • 2011-07-01 18214, 2011

      • bitmap
        e.g. "multiple recordings are joined on a single recording" doesn't read as well as "multiple recordings are joined on a single track" IMO
      • 2011-07-01 18205, 2011

      • warp
        I would probably use "song" if I am not referring to a specific database entity.
      • 2011-07-01 18241, 2011

      • nikki
        it mostly refers to a track on a cd (which then needs a corresponding recording)
      • 2011-07-01 18242, 2011

      • warp
        "multiple songs are joined on a single recording" <-- I know song refers to something outside of musicbrainz, recording is our data type thingy.
      • 2011-07-01 18215, 2011

      • reosarevok
        warp: "song" is a type of work :p
      • 2011-07-01 18229, 2011

      • warp
        reosarevok: nooo
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • reosarevok has no idea of what it's supposed to mean, but is in the list
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • warp did not know that.
      • 2011-07-01 18258, 2011

      • reosarevok
        "several recordings are joined into a single one"?
      • 2011-07-01 18217, 2011

      • bitmap still likes track better :P
      • 2011-07-01 18247, 2011

      • bitmap
        and for "multiple songs are joined on a single recording" someone might confuse for a medley
      • 2011-07-01 18202, 2011

      • bitmap
        which is a different relationship
      • 2011-07-01 18232, 2011

      • reosarevok
        Then maybe it needs more than one sentence ;)
      • 2011-07-01 18216, 2011

      • bitmap
        maybe ;) although I'm not a fan of wordy guidelines
      • 2011-07-01 18229, 2011

      • warp agrees to that.
      • 2011-07-01 18200, 2011

      • reosarevok doesn't like wordy guidelines, but it will need to state how it is different from medley in a clear way
      • 2011-07-01 18212, 2011

      • reosarevok
        Once that's done, make it as short as you want :)
      • 2011-07-01 18230, 2011

      • nikki
        "on a single recording (but have not been otherwise altered)"?
      • 2011-07-01 18233, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: any idea if/how I can do split(",", $foo)[0] ? (other than assigning it first)
      • 2011-07-01 18253, 2011

      • bitmap
        how about "multiple unaltered recordings are joined on a single track"
      • 2011-07-01 18212, 2011

      • reosarevok
        "multiple unaltered recordings are joined on a single thingy"
      • 2011-07-01 18250, 2011

      • reosarevok
        "on a single thingy, which is not an album, but other smaller thingy"
      • 2011-07-01 18234, 2011

      • adhawkins has been in far too many meetings that sounds just like this.
      • 2011-07-01 18240, 2011

      • adhawkins suggests using 'entity'
      • 2011-07-01 18236, 2011

      • nikki
        we already use entity too
      • 2011-07-01 18243, 2011

      • bitmap
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • bitmap
        I dunno how else to improve things
      • 2011-07-01 18247, 2011

      • adhawkins laughs
      • 2011-07-01 18249, 2011

      • bitmap
        maybe just "multiple unaltered recordings are joined together" but I think track is fine
      • 2011-07-01 18254, 2011

      • adhawkins
        Sorry, bit of an in joke at work.
      • 2011-07-01 18211, 2011

      • adhawkins
        Entity is always suggested when someone is looking for another word for 'thingy'
      • 2011-07-01 18224, 2011

      • ocharles
        warp: (split ",", $foo)[0]
      • 2011-07-01 18232, 2011

      • ocharles
        or []->[0]
      • 2011-07-01 18208, 2011

      • warp
        ocharles: ah, thanks
      • 2011-07-01 18248, 2011

      • bitmap
        ocharles: btw, for the first-release-date feature, does it only ever give the year, or does it just not sort the same way as release groups?