#musicbrainz-devel

InsertTestData isn't run unconditionally, is it?

it's run whenever prepare_test_database is called at least

_load_query has ($class, $query, $default) but doesn't use $default unless $query is undefined

oh, yeah

so if you do prepare_test_database('+whatever') it won't run InsertTestData

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

hm, where does that happen?

initial.sql, or the rollback stuff?

the rollback stuff

lemme find it again, heh

I knew it did something like that but wasn't sure where to look

a

h

t/lib/t/Context.pm

around run_test

ah

that stupid test context cache works wrong too, but eh

(the syntax for providing expiration times to Cache::Memory is different than to memcached)

I guess it seems useful for initial.sql to hold stuff that doesn't need to change throughout the tests, like types

but it's kinda empty at the moment

yeah

and it should certainly set sequences for the things it puts stuff in

or have create_test_db.sh do that, but

I'll make it run SetSequences.sql after initial.sql for now

Wow.

First subscription mail since Jan 9th!

gasp. cdbaby is kiling its affiliate program.

what are we going to do without that $12 every 3 years??

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...

if you make the field mandatory, then some people will put garbage there.

i agree, but if editor puts garbage in a mandatory field, i feel free to vote No.

FWIW, that'd make editing some stuff super-slow if you have to paste the same source edit by edit in 40 related things

(not saying it's bad in general to have sources, just hat there's no non-annoying way to do it)

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)

reosarevok: i think it would make sense for certain types of edits, ie. cover art

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

(like "I just took it from other site")

having something like 'i got it from the web, perhaps an illegal source' is far better than nothing imho

I mean, it is for *us*

I meant that they might be scared about *themselves* :p

ahah

well, i still think cover art isn't sufficiently sourced in most cases

I doubt it would ever be a problem, but some people are kinda paranoid about these things :)

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

(just that I wouldn't necessarily vote No if they do)

Anyway, add a ticket, see what others think, I guess? :)

We do it for releases, so it's not like there's no precedent

What do you mean by "We do it for releases" ?

We already require a note when adding a release or a standalone recording

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...)

And only a free comment for "Other source" choice

zas:How often is the cover art actually wrong, does it really matter what the source is ?

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

Or upload cover art with/without Parental Advisory to the wrong versions.

What would the extra field fulfill what can't be put into an edit note?

I find that the cropping can often be slightly off for different releases.

Oh, true, I forgot that even exists, but that's also interesting :)

If you think a release add etc. is fishy and has no sources, voting against it doesn't make you an asshole either.

Maybe the editor will provide sources from then on and you have a learning effect.

Or maybe the editor will see the "Someone has voted no to your edit" e-mail and just never return to MB.

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.

Of course you should accompany such a vote with an explanation why you are voting so.

And offer to help them if needed.

Unfortunately, that note is not included in the "Someone don't like you" e-mail.

It's one mail below or above it.

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".

Maybe the No vote mail can be phrased more nicely as well.

Dunno when I last got one.

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.

Last October.

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.

You might have different thoughts about the project, but that's on you.

I think we both want the same, in the end.

alastairp: ping

hi

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

That's up for interpretation.

ianmcorvidae, bitmap: can either of you please merge https://bitbucket.org/metabrainz/musicbrainz-se... ?

i added the artwork myself, so basically not having source information is bad.

Gentlecat: can you please edit our ideas page and add some stuff about working on ABZ?

at this point just make something up that you can see.

foresee

I was just writing to you about my idea for CB

my idea was to work on moderation interface. we have spam reporting and other stuff, but no good interface to act on that

if that sounds interesting I can add that too

sure.

but you'd finish that in the space of what... a day? 2?

I guess that may need more. :)

some people asked for more entities to review

that might be an interesting project as well

please, by all means.

Oh, perhaps BookBrainz <-> CB integration?

I don't know how flexible CB would currently be for non-MB MB-ish sites.

Or BenSputnik could perhaps add some BookBrainz ideas to the page as well.

we discussed it last week I think

s/ga/ca/

woot!

thanks for getting that hooked up.

anyway, I'm not sure how many ports in that office have uplink

have you found one?

not sure what you're asking.

half the network ports in this building aren't connected to anything

ah. there was a ethernet cable connected to the wall, and I used it.

ah, sure

good choice, I guess

so, whats a better name this thing?

abinternal

seekrit

tacobell? :p

lol

WINNER!