#musicbrainz-devel

the incompatibility?

yes

and he's not present at a very cricital meeting. :-(

I'm fully open to suggestions. Anyone have any?

guys, it seems to me the code review before commit isn't working that well for you

ijabz: I think its working great!

I think brianfreud is not fitting into the process.

ijabz: committing patches without approving would turn into mess

but for aCiD2, luks and I I think its working fine.

code review is working extremely well between me and lukas, but the javascript stuff it's not working as well...

really, well Ive seen alot of discussion between acid and bf

and I wonder if bf delayed submittiing the code for review

the thing is this...

one moment:

too much sadly.

http://codereview.musicbrainz.org/r/414/ - is how a good review should look

http://codereview.musicbrainz.org/r/370/ is how brians look

aCiD2: is it time that you took over the editor?

I do think if I did, we'd at least end up with something that does the job in Firefox, which is all we were aiming for...

how long do you think it would take you to come up with something that was useful?

if you could stop bickering with bf

I think I could have a release editor done by sunday if I had the full week, but saturday and sunday I'm moving back to uni

I'd certainly be at least half way there by friday I think though

and with moving?

if we give it another two weeks?

after the move, I think it should be done by the next friday

conservative estimates of course

I'd *like* to get it almost all done by friday, but I think that could be unrealistic

so, if we slip the schedule again, we should slip it to a date that we can make FOR SURE.

aCiD2: what do you think that date should be?

luks: and you:?

We need to agree on how much we want done before we can settle on that I think

I don't know, but there is a lot of work to be done

luks: right, but are we aiming for feature parity on the first beta test?

I'd rather not present something messy and unfinished as 'beta' version

I don't know

true

:-(

ok, lets just postpone the beta for now.

I wonder if we could try and start to be a bit more organised about this now

if you don't have more-or-less feature parity, it's an alpha isn't it? :)

Start using the bug tracker and create a "beta testing" milestone

not post another date until we're certain.

aCiD2: yes, I was hoping for the same.

for myself, I'm afraid I can't be more organized

Because we had so much work at the start, that was unrealistic, but now we're homing in on completion, i'd love to see us start to bring more structure in

MB has been my 'job' for three months now

I'd like it to be fun again

but it's hard with this rush

All I was considering was basically filing tickets on the bug tracker that correspond to reviews

aCiD2: I agree. I think we should start doing just that.

because I think we're all starting to get lost on what's done, and what needs to be done

Would you like me to start moving some tasks over ruaok ?

lets start by taking the tasks and roadmap pages and move them to tasks in a milestone on trac.

yes.

great

luks: even though you wouldn't necessarily be working in this manner, do you think it would work for the rest of us (really hard question, I know)

luks: if you could shoot us a quick email with things that you see that need to get done, then aCiD2 and I can get them into trac.

just wonder if you have any wisdom to share before we start here :)

well, lets proceed with the milestone. I think more clarity is needed. I'll help out after the meeting.

cool

but for me must-heave features are: full edit browsing, full release editor, full AR editing

yup, I agree there

I will talk to the BBC and get a take on where they stand.

expect a blog post from me soon on all this.

back to the release editor for a minute.

i would like you to proceed with the release editor. See how much you can knock out before you go.

working with brianfreud isn't working out. :(

sure thing

I'll send him an email too.

:(

ruaok has changed the topic to: agenda: stylesguidelines for NGS, documentation for NGS, error pages

we need to start thinking about adapting the style guidelines to NGS.

warp: I was hoping that I could rope you into helping with this.

ruaok: in what way?

oh, style guidelines.

we need to figure out which guidelines still apply. which new ones we need. and which ones need to be adapted.

working on guidelines is hard without seeing what is NGS about

luks: understood.

we should merge the upgrade script patches

luks probably meant ' make sure test.musicbrainz.org is updated '

make sure test.mb.org is updated

and make it more visible

ugh, that's going to be a lot of nasty work... we still haven't passed the RG guideline, no-one has volunteered to champion it, and I haven't had time either.

I just want us to start thinking about the guidelines -- they will take quite some time to organize.

we don't need an official 'beta' release for people to play with it

I fear we could have similar trouble with all the NGS guidelines.

the upgrade script now can do artist credits, merge recordings and merge multi-disc releases

that should be enough for people who didn't follow the NGS schema to get an idea

and start working on guidelines

acid2:Hey, i didnt think any changes to search were required for this beta your discussing, I thought this came later

luks: I'll re-run the data on test later today.

ruaok: first we need to merge murdos's patch :)

ijabz: I'm just sketching ideas down for now

luks: how far from being accepted is that patch?

When I've done a braindump of tasks to do, me and ruaok will work out what is for beta, and what comes later, I think

ruaok: will you be updating the data too? it was quite out of date last I looked

ruaok: i'm also really not at all familiar with NGS, so It's going to be hard for me to decide which guidelines apply before having a beta

very close

nikki: yes

ruaok: I need to add an additional check on release events

yay

warp: we can always talk about it together

ruaok: once e have a beta, I think we can find some volunteers (including) me, to go through the existing guidelines.

warp: I think once we update test to what we're talking about things will become more clear.

warp: that is exactly what I was hoping to hear! :)

not that we need to hammer on them now, but that we need to start the process of migrating them.

murdos: any idea if you have time coming up to add that check?

I'll work on it tomorrow, and I hope to deliver it in the week

ruaok: I have some more thoughts on the mb-style process/approach in this context which I'll write down and e-mail you, to hopefully avoid what's happening now with the RG guideline.

excellent!

warp: I'd love to hear it!

the style process is my nemisis!

hehe

the same applies to the documentation in general.

yeah

but that is too early to really think about -- we need a solid beta before we jump on that.

and even more vague, I'd love to see some clever/fun error pages designed for NGS.

dave has made some for our load balancer that I think are quite funny.

heh

but we probably won't see those much.

whereas the mb_server pages will be seen more.

lol

but, something to throw out. not anything to really get moving on.

:)

what else should we discuss?

ruaok: do you have any boring error messages you can put up on a wiki page so people can get creative with them? :)

then you cherry pick the ones you like.

well, I'm only talking about the standard HTTP error codes.

oh right

404, 403, 502, 503, etc.

ok, anything else?

lots to do. lots of heavy emails for me to send.

better get on it.

thanks everyone!

<BANG>

warp, post the link again, please?

yes, sir

thanks.

luks: are you aware of the issue with index "link_type_idx_gid" ?

no

what issue?

ok: both release and release_group have the same gid

coming from album