it's run whenever prepare_test_database is called at least
2015-02-11 04220, 2015
ianmcorvidae
isn't it only run by default though?
2015-02-11 04238, 2015
ianmcorvidae
_load_query has ($class, $query, $default) but doesn't use $default unless $query is undefined
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
bitmap
oh, yeah
2015-02-11 04253, 2015
ianmcorvidae
so if you do prepare_test_database('+whatever') it won't run InsertTestData
2015-02-11 04239, 2015
ianmcorvidae
initial.sql also seems to actually be set up to happen before the insert-test-rollback thing that the tests do, which may or may not matter at all
2015-02-11 04222, 2015
bitmap
hm, where does that happen?
2015-02-11 04208, 2015
ianmcorvidae
initial.sql, or the rollback stuff?
2015-02-11 04220, 2015
bitmap
the rollback stuff
2015-02-11 04231, 2015
ianmcorvidae
lemme find it again, heh
2015-02-11 04209, 2015
bitmap
I knew it did something like that but wasn't sure where to look
2015-02-11 04239, 2015
ianmcorvidae
a
2015-02-11 04240, 2015
ianmcorvidae
h
2015-02-11 04244, 2015
ianmcorvidae
t/lib/t/Context.pm
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
ianmcorvidae
around run_test
2015-02-11 04214, 2015
bitmap
ah
2015-02-11 04228, 2015
ianmcorvidae
that stupid test context cache works wrong too, but eh
2015-02-11 04242, 2015
ianmcorvidae
(the syntax for providing expiration times to Cache::Memory is different than to memcached)
2015-02-11 04212, 2015
bitmap
I guess it seems useful for initial.sql to hold stuff that doesn't need to change throughout the tests, like types
2015-02-11 04224, 2015
bitmap
but it's kinda empty at the moment
2015-02-11 04253, 2015
ianmcorvidae
yeah
2015-02-11 04201, 2015
ianmcorvidae
and it should certainly set sequences for the things it puts stuff in
2015-02-11 04239, 2015
ianmcorvidae
or have create_test_db.sh do that, but
2015-02-11 04240, 2015
bitmap
I'll make it run SetSequences.sql after initial.sql for now
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
chirlu` has left the channel
2015-02-11 04213, 2015
Nyanko-sensei joined the channel
2015-02-11 04209, 2015
darthanubis joined the channel
2015-02-11 04259, 2015
Gentlecat joined the channel
2015-02-11 04222, 2015
JesseW joined the channel
2015-02-11 04201, 2015
ijabz2 joined the channel
2015-02-11 04249, 2015
ManiacTwister joined the channel
2015-02-11 04249, 2015
rk29 joined the channel
2015-02-11 04200, 2015
kahu joined the channel
2015-02-11 04248, 2015
rk29 joined the channel
2015-02-11 04257, 2015
KRS-Cuan joined the channel
2015-02-11 04229, 2015
ariscop joined the channel
2015-02-11 04203, 2015
darthanubis joined the channel
2015-02-11 04225, 2015
_Dave_ joined the channel
2015-02-11 04208, 2015
yeeeargh joined the channel
2015-02-11 04217, 2015
diana_olhovik joined the channel
2015-02-11 04233, 2015
reosarevok joined the channel
2015-02-11 04218, 2015
zas joined the channel
2015-02-11 04252, 2015
ariscop joined the channel
2015-02-11 04240, 2015
ohrstrom joined the channel
2015-02-11 04234, 2015
Freso
Wow.
2015-02-11 04241, 2015
Freso
First subscription mail since Jan 9th!
2015-02-11 04222, 2015
reosarevok joined the channel
2015-02-11 04218, 2015
ijabz2 joined the channel
2015-02-11 04251, 2015
ruaok joined the channel
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
Gentlecat joined the channel
2015-02-11 04255, 2015
ruaok
gasp. cdbaby is kiling its affiliate program.
2015-02-11 04209, 2015
ruaok
what are we going to do without that $12 every 3 years??
2015-02-11 04203, 2015
zas
We should have a specific and mandatory field "Sources" for most edit types, too many are done without source indication, and when you ask to editor, most of the times he/she is able to give perfectly valid sources...
2015-02-11 04228, 2015
ruaok
if you make the field mandatory, then some people will put garbage there.
2015-02-11 04203, 2015
zas
i agree, but if editor puts garbage in a mandatory field, i feel free to vote No.
2015-02-11 04203, 2015
reosarevok
FWIW, that'd make editing some stuff super-slow if you have to paste the same source edit by edit in 40 related things
2015-02-11 04224, 2015
reosarevok
(not saying it's bad in general to have sources, just hat there's no non-annoying way to do it)
2015-02-11 04227, 2015
zas
In the current situation, i'm forced to either vote Yes (not checking sources), Abstain (i dont care if your sources are invalid for this release), No (i'm a bad guy blocking you because i'm bored of asking sources to every damn editor around there)
2015-02-11 04205, 2015
zas
reosarevok: i think it would make sense for certain types of edits, ie. cover art
2015-02-11 04240, 2015
reosarevok
I would be fine with it for cover art, although I suspect some people might just not want to admit where the cover art is from because they might fear it's illegal or some shit
2015-02-11 04253, 2015
reosarevok
(like "I just took it from other site")
2015-02-11 04237, 2015
zas
having something like 'i got it from the web, perhaps an illegal source' is far better than nothing imho
2015-02-11 04252, 2015
reosarevok
I mean, it is for *us*
2015-02-11 04201, 2015
reosarevok
I meant that they might be scared about *themselves* :p
2015-02-11 04211, 2015
zas
ahah
2015-02-11 04240, 2015
zas
well, i still think cover art isn't sufficiently sourced in most cases
2015-02-11 04242, 2015
reosarevok
I doubt it would ever be a problem, but some people are kinda paranoid about these things :)
2015-02-11 04251, 2015
reosarevok
Yeah, I agree. I think the right answer to those people is probably "get over it, and if you can't, well, enter a period" and we'd still get mostly useful info even if a few people entered a period :p
2015-02-11 04218, 2015
reosarevok
(just that I wouldn't necessarily vote No if they do)
2015-02-11 04233, 2015
reosarevok
Anyway, add a ticket, see what others think, I guess? :)
2015-02-11 04245, 2015
reosarevok
We do it for releases, so it's not like there's no precedent
2015-02-11 04223, 2015
zas
What do you mean by "We do it for releases" ?
2015-02-11 04256, 2015
reosarevok
We already require a note when adding a release or a standalone recording
2015-02-11 04214, 2015
zas
Hmm, yes, not really required in fact. But i was thinking about something more like a multiple choice, ie. for cover art (My own scan, From artist/label official website, From well-known website, From other source, etc... with sub choice, ie. Amazon/Discogs/etc for well-known sites, an url from artist/label sites, etc...)
2015-02-11 04250, 2015
zas
And only a free comment for "Other source" choice
2015-02-11 04238, 2015
ijabz2
zas:How often is the cover art actually wrong, does it really matter what the source is ?
2015-02-11 04229, 2015
reosarevok
I'd expect it's fairly common for people to upload the digital cover to a CD or whatever, when they often have different shapes/sizes if not other differences
2015-02-11 04231, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Or upload cover art with/without Parental Advisory to the wrong versions.
2015-02-11 04257, 2015
KRS-Cuan
What would the extra field fulfill what can't be put into an edit note?
2015-02-11 04200, 2015
Freso
I find that the cropping can often be slightly off for different releases.
2015-02-11 04206, 2015
reosarevok
Oh, true, I forgot that even exists, but that's also interesting :)
2015-02-11 04207, 2015
KRS-Cuan
If you think a release add etc. is fishy and has no sources, voting against it doesn't make you an asshole either.
2015-02-11 04237, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Maybe the editor will provide sources from then on and you have a learning effect.
2015-02-11 04203, 2015
ruaok joined the channel
2015-02-11 04254, 2015
Freso
Or maybe the editor will see the "Someone has voted no to your edit" e-mail and just never return to MB.
2015-02-11 04253, 2015
KRS-Cuan
I've said it before and I'll say it again: We don't need editors who can't stand the slightest bit of criticism.
2015-02-11 04216, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Of course you should accompany such a vote with an explanation why you are voting so.
2015-02-11 04226, 2015
KRS-Cuan
And offer to help them if needed.
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
Freso
Unfortunately, that note is not included in the "Someone don't like you" e-mail.
2015-02-11 04215, 2015
KRS-Cuan
It's one mail below or above it.
2015-02-11 04235, 2015
Freso
I also don't agree with your notion that getting told off in the manner of that e-mail is "the slightest bit of criticism".
2015-02-11 04238, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Maybe the No vote mail can be phrased more nicely as well.
2015-02-11 04244, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Dunno when I last got one.
2015-02-11 04223, 2015
Julior joined the channel
2015-02-11 04234, 2015
ruaok joined the channel
2015-02-11 04246, 2015
Freso
A lot of people come from using morituri or beets or other 3rd party applications spouting MusicBrainz as the Ultimate Data Source OMG™ (which, of course, it also is), but they're already not super inclined to get involved with it. Getting a discouraging mail like that is likely to just turn them away for good and go back to software relying on FreeDB lookups or whatnot.
2015-02-11 04253, 2015
KRS-Cuan
Last October.
2015-02-11 04233, 2015
Freso
Even if they're not going to be around in the 3 years regardless, I do want to have their few contributions for the short time they *are* around, rather then scaring them off in the first week or two.
2015-02-11 04247, 2015
Freso
You might have different thoughts about the project, but that's on you.
2015-02-11 04205, 2015
KRS-Cuan
I think we both want the same, in the end.
2015-02-11 04256, 2015
ruaok
alastairp: ping
2015-02-11 04249, 2015
alastairp
hi
2015-02-11 04234, 2015
reosarevok_ joined the channel
2015-02-11 04234, 2015
ijabz2
based on ruaok point that if an edit improves Musicbrainz it shoud be allowed even if not prefect isnt it better to have artworek that is roughly right rather than no artwork at all
