hmm... would it make sense to have a version in trac for the current ngs code, for bugs/enhancements which are only valid for the ngs code?
2009-12-05 33943, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33956, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33957, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33920, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33959, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33924, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33927, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33951, 2009
ijabz joined the channel
2009-12-05 33939, 2009
luks joined the channel
2009-12-05 33905, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33907, 2009
brianfreud joined the channel
2009-12-05 33909, 2009
brianfreud_ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33930, 2009
navap
nikki: I still think this is a valid bug/enhancement, so should I add an updated link? Or do you think it's not valid with NGS' artist relationships page? http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/4692
2009-12-05 33959, 2009
nikki looks
2009-12-05 33925, 2009
nikki
hmm...
2009-12-05 33939, 2009
brianfreud__ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33923, 2009
nikki
I think the problem is mostly that the information isn't displayed very well, not that there's too much of it
2009-12-05 33910, 2009
nikki
I wonder if we have a ticket already for displaying the information better...
2009-12-05 33912, 2009
nikki
I guess I would probably update the links, it's not an obviously invalid bug so I would skip it anyway, I'm only closing ones which obviously don't apply anymore
2009-12-05 33926, 2009
nikki
and if you update the links, at least people can see what you mean
2009-12-05 33933, 2009
navap
Yeah
2009-12-05 33943, 2009
nikki has clicked on sooo many links which are either broken or don't look like they did at the time in the last 24 hours :P
2009-12-05 33909, 2009
navap
haha yeah
2009-12-05 33934, 2009
navap
Should I change the summary to something about 'not displayed nicely' instead of 'too many displayed'?
2009-12-05 33903, 2009
nikki
sure
2009-12-05 33955, 2009
warp
hello!
2009-12-05 33921, 2009
navap
warp: Good morning
2009-12-05 33923, 2009
nikki
moin moin
2009-12-05 33956, 2009
luks joined the channel
2009-12-05 33954, 2009
luks joined the channel
2009-12-05 33940, 2009
nikki_ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33909, 2009
nikki__ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33922, 2009
nikki___ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
navap wonders how this artist can have a rating of 4 stars when it also says "no ratings". http://test.musicbrainz.org/artist/67f66c07-6e61-4026-ade5-7e782fad3a5d/ratings
2009-12-05 33915, 2009
nikki____ joined the channel
2009-12-05 33948, 2009
nikki____ attempts to resist the temptation to throw this stupid macbook out of the window
Going by the search page on test we do have it, and it's the default search.
2009-12-05 33923, 2009
navap
Of course I'm just going by the label provided, I have no idea if it's actually doing a direct search or nt.
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
nikki
yeah, that's why I asked
2009-12-05 33912, 2009
warp
test doesn't have a search server, that's probably why the direct search is the default there.
2009-12-05 33938, 2009
aCiD2
I want to get the search server running, but I haven't had time just yet
2009-12-05 33916, 2009
navap
Ah so that's why the non-direct searches return server errors.
2009-12-05 33901, 2009
nikki
btw I want to add a version to trac for the ngs code (since it's not like we can assign stuff to current server versions if it only exists in the ngs code...), any preferences for the naming of it or should I just use "Server: NGS"?
2009-12-05 33906, 2009
navap
Should it have "test" or "devel" in there somewhere?
2009-12-05 33921, 2009
aCiD2
Server: Test might indeed be better
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
nikki
not sure... all the others for the server are "Server YYYY-MM-DD", except for "Server: XHTML 2.0"...
2009-12-05 33901, 2009
navap
But the other versions are actual "real" releases.
2009-12-05 33907, 2009
warp
Server: Test makes sense for the unreleased code.
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
MBChatLogger
aCiD2 probably meant ' nikki: right, because those are exact versions - test is never going to be a version, it's just whatever's on test.musicbrainz.org at the time :) '
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
aCiD2
nikki: right, because those are exact versions - test is never going to be a version, it's just whatever's on test.mb.org at the time :)
2009-12-05 33955, 2009
aCiD2
shush logger, shush.
2009-12-05 33915, 2009
warp sides with MBChatLogger
2009-12-05 33919, 2009
nikki
test on its own doesn't sound too good to me, the stuff on test changes over time, whereas the stuff on test at the moment is like... ngs alpha or something
2009-12-05 33936, 2009
nikki
since we don't have a beta yet :P
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
aCiD2
:P
2009-12-05 33926, 2009
aCiD2
For now,leave the version out and use the milestone beta 1
2009-12-05 33937, 2009
navap
I understand we don't want to give free advertising to our friendly neighbourhood mortgage broker, but MBChatLogger gets a little annoying repeating people all the time :p
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
nikki
for things that don't even need to be in the final release?
2009-12-05 33904, 2009
warp
navap: if you don't want chatlogger to keep doing that, use the correct name.
2009-12-05 33923, 2009
navap
aCiD2: I added a few tickets with the NGS (Release) milestone because I didn't think they were important enough.
same, some I didn't even set that because they were enhancements that don't *need* to be done, but they apply to the ngs code, not the mason/non-existent-tt-release/something else
2009-12-05 33943, 2009
aCiD2
I still think it's best we put everything in milestone 1 initially
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
aCiD2
and let me, rob and warp work out what goes where
2009-12-05 33906, 2009
aCiD2
something might take 5 minutes, and we might as well do it in milestone 1, even if it's trivial priority
2009-12-05 33932, 2009
nikki
didn't rob say to *not* use beta 1?
2009-12-05 33905, 2009
aCiD2
oh, ok :P
2009-12-05 33952, 2009
nikki
he also said earlier that we have to add the version sooner or later so we might as well do it now and start using it... you guys are good at saying the opposite things :P
2009-12-05 33909, 2009
aCiD2
haha
2009-12-05 33933, 2009
aCiD2
go ahead with the version, I really don't mind - and I guess anything that adds some structure can't be bad
2009-12-05 33933, 2009
navap
I didn't want to stick everything in the beta 1 because I figured you guys would get the emails anyway and I didn't want to create more work for anyone who had to change the milestones.
2009-12-05 33927, 2009
warp
I think I've merged in everything I needed to merge in.
the abbreviation stuff still confuses me, but that's not your fault
2009-12-05 33946, 2009
nikki
although you changed main exceptions to only exceptions...
2009-12-05 33946, 2009
warp
main implied there are more, do you know of any?
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
nikki
well the next sentence says ost also doesn't get expanded...
2009-12-05 33957, 2009
warp
but it also says OST is an acronym, not an abbreviation.
2009-12-05 33951, 2009
warp
(ok, acronyms are a type of abbreviation).
2009-12-05 33936, 2009
warp
nikki: I've changed it back to 'main'.
2009-12-05 33915, 2009
nikki
I imagine a lot of people wouldn't really make the distinction, like it took me long enough to notice that the bit about OST was talking about acronyms and I'm more pedantic than most people I know
2009-12-05 33932, 2009
nikki
that bit still confuses me, does it mean *all* acronyms? or just ones which are like OST?
2009-12-05 33909, 2009
warp
I _think_ the intent is to apply to all acronyms, and OST is just an example of an acronym.
2009-12-05 33953, 2009
warp
so it's probably better to just get rid of OST there?
2009-12-05 33926, 2009
nikki
acryonyms, e.g. OST, should ... would make it clearer to me that it means all acronyms
2009-12-05 33954, 2009
warp
right, much better.
2009-12-05 33956, 2009
warp
it's still not very readable :)
2009-12-05 33943, 2009
nikki
how about just "abbreviations in titles (but not acronyms) ..."?
2009-12-05 33918, 2009
warp changes.
2009-12-05 33954, 2009
warp
I think it's an improvement.
2009-12-05 33927, 2009
warp
except that 'the main exceptions' now seems odd.
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
nikki
yeah, only would work there now
2009-12-05 33907, 2009
warp
changed.
2009-12-05 33911, 2009
warp
nikki: thanks!
2009-12-05 33915, 2009
nikki
no problem :)
2009-12-05 33932, 2009
nikki
I don't necessarily agree with it, but I actually understand what it's saying now :P
2009-12-05 33935, 2009
warp
now, with the OST gone from that text, we should probably add an example with OST in it to the exapmles.
2009-12-05 33939, 2009
warp
suggestions?
2009-12-05 33949, 2009
nikki
ghost in the shell? there are a whole bunch of soundtracks for that
2009-12-05 33946, 2009
warp
gah, annoying search box jumps back to 'artist' after each attempt.
