#musicbrainz-devel

/

      • dinog joined the channel
      • VectorX joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • reosarevok joined the channel
      • VectorX joined the channel
      • djce joined the channel
      • djce joined the channel
      • ijabz joined the channel
      • nikki
        hey ijabz
      • I was wondering what needs to happen now you've added those punctuation characters to the search server
      • ijabz
        hi
      • Well the search server code has to be rebuilt and released on test
      • nikki
        ah, who usually does that?
      • ijabz
        but I dont do that, I dont think this is enough of a change to bother doing that
      • ocharles I think
      • nikki
        and does that mean the live server won't get updated?
      • ppawel joined the channel
      • the problem is mostly that one of the guidelines got changed to allow punctuation like that, so quite a few people are being quite... vocal about it :/
      • I think it's probably more that they just don't like the characters in general, but having the search not treat them the same doesn't help matters
      • so I'm just trying to keep track of when things are likely to get updated. I can't make anyone do anything, after all :)
      • ijabz
        Nikki, no Live will not get updated, I mean the whole codebase has changed and live still has the bigger problem of not decoding the freeedb index data correctly
      • nikki
        ok
      • VectorX joined the channel
      • VectorX has left the channel
      • dinog1 joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • ruaok checks in from MUC.
      • ruaok
        I've got a couple of hours to kill. anyone need anything?
      • reosarevok wants gummy bears
      • reosarevok
        But apart from that, not really
      • ruaok passes the bag of bears around again.
      • dinog joined the channel
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • nikki
        hmm...
      • ruaok
        yeeees?
      • nikki
        in http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/5491 navap suggested using [[Page_Name]] instead of [Page_Name] in edit notes to link to the documentation pages... but is there a way we could do that without breaking all the old notes?
      • warp
        garrr
      • test is giving internal server error
      • nikki
        hi warp!
      • ruaok
        nikki: not sure. we could convert the old notes in the NGS conversion.
      • nikki
        'cause if we allow spaces like the ticket suggests, I think that would end up turning things like "I think you should use [Some Unofficial Name]" into a link to the docs, which it shouldn't, since we use square brackets for special purpose stuff
      • (if that bit made sense...)
      • ruaok
        it does.
      • ffs.
      • I passed through TWO security checkpoints already.
      • and now a team of people rolled in for a THIRD one.
      • fucking security theater!
      • ijabz
        in NGS is a recording always associated with at least one release or not ?
      • nikki
        no
      • non-album tracks are converted into standalone recordings, which are recordings not linked to a release
      • ijabz
        Do you have an example
      • nikki
      • ijabz
        hehe
      • reosarevok
        That reminds me. Is it technically feasible for NGS to somehow make Picard believe that a standalone recording is a 1-track release?
      • reosarevok has no idea how info goes from MB to Picard
      • ijabz
        BUt what I don't quite get is if Ollie releases that recording on an album at some point in the future it will then become linked to a release, but does that then mean we lost the fact that it was once a standalone recording
      • reosarevok
        ijabz: well, we lose the fact that a track has been a NAT in Mason
      • When it is released
      • So no change there
      • (well, yeah, the change that we don't lose all the ARs and have to enter them again)
      • nikki
        and we don't lose the mbids either
      • ocharles
        I'm not sure whether there's much sense in recording that "this was once a standalone track"
      • do you gain much from that?
      • nikki doesn't think so
      • ijabz
        prob not, just trying to understand
      • nikki
        we can already create one-track digital releases if we want to think of the online track as a proper release
      • warp
        ocharles: any idea how I can get http://test.musicbrainz.org/static/scripts/test... working?
      • ocharles
        warp: with the dev server?
      • warp
        ocharles: yes.
      • ocharles
      • ijabz
        nikki, that was more my thinking, so they are put into their own release are they
      • ocharles
        that mentions that html is by default ignored
      • reosarevok
        ijabz: yeah
      • ijabz: you can just add a 1-track digital single
      • ocharles
        warp: or perldoc Catalyst::Plugin::Static::Simple if you're saving bandwidth ;)
      • reosarevok
        which is a single release
      • warp
        ocharles: yes, I know Catalyst::Plugin::Static::Simple is ignoring .html by default, but I cannot figure out how to make it stop doing that.
      • ocharles
        you just stuff ignore_extensions => [] into the config
      • one sec
      • ijabz
        So you just dont do that when the sonh has'n't been released/made available publicly
      • ocharles
        warp: add to __PACKAGE__->config (MB::S line 45): static => { ignore_extensions => [] }
      • warp
        ocharles: I already tried setting a new value in lib/MusicBrainz/Server.pm. tried ignore_extensions => [ ] and ignore_extensions => [ qw/php/ ] (just in case it would consider an empty list as a falsy value).
      • nikki
        ijabz: although whether people do that depends on whether it seems like a proper release, there are plenty of cases where it would be really weird to call something that's currently a non-album track a digital single
      • ocharles
        warp: you have to put it in static => {} inside the config
      • warp
        ok, I'll do that again.
      • ocharles: still 500.
      • ocharles
        warp: i'll try then
      • ijabz
        Say a band put a song on their website available to download, but it is not actually a single what would u do
      • reosarevok
        ijabz: normally, I add a track that is for sale as a single. A track in Bandcamp -> single. A track in a less final-user-oriented site, like Soundcloud -> NAT
      • MBChatLogger
      • ocharles
        warp: wait, you want this on test.mb.org or your server?
      • because test serves static with nginx, not plugin::static::simple
      • warp does the same .
      • nikki
        for me it's also has cover art -> single, tracks on myspace/facebook -> non-album track
      • warp
        ocharles: aaah, why is nginx 500-ing then? :)
      • ocharles
        warp: 500 seems odd, but I can see it giving permission denied or something
      • warp: let me look at the config a sec
      • warp resets server.pm
      • warp
        rewrite or internal redirection cycle while internal redirect to "/static/scripts/tests/index.html"
      • ocharles
        warp: 2011/02/01 13:27:01 [error] 733#0: *38544 rewrite or internal redirection cycle while internal redirect to "/static/scripts/tests/index.html", client: 10.1.1.14, server: test.musicbrainz.org, request: "GET /static/scripts/tests/ HTTP/1.0", host: "test.musicbrainz.org"
      • oh, heh
      • you win!
      • warp
        :)
      • ocharles
        maybe:
      • rewrite ^\/(.*\/)index\.html$ /$1 ;
      • ?
      • warp
        yeah, that's probably it.
      • but I'm not that familiar with writing nginx rewrite rules.
      • ocharles
        that's in /etc/nginx/mbserver-rewrites.conf if you want to try messing around
      • it's in git too, so you can go crazy
      • warp
        easiest is probably to prevent that rule from matching anything which starts with /static.
      • ocharles
        yea, that's what I'd try first
      • ruaok joined the channel
      • ruaok
        ocharles: I've read your email about the testing.
      • I dont really have any valuable feedback for you. :-(
      • warp: what do you think of this new testing approach?
      • ocharles
        ruaok: yea, I'm not really sure what feedback I can expect from people :)
      • warp
        ruaok: er. email? I'll have to get back to you.
      • ruaok
        how pervasive are the changes to the codebase, ocharles ?
      • ocharles
        267 files changed, 6519 insertions(+), 6095 deletions(-)
      • ruaok
        warp: speaking of email, did you get the email about watching the servers tonight?
      • oh fuck.
      • do we really want to do this before NGS?
      • ocharles
        test has been running it for a week now and while we did have bizzare hiccups, it's been for 4 days since
      • ruaok: the changes are mostly variable renaming
      • warp
        if it's the acid2/test-routine stuff I veto.
      • :)
      • ruaok
        warp: yes.
      • are kidding about that?
      • ocharles
        The one thing that does change is that now we connect once, and only once, and pass the same dbh around. I think I may change that to pass a DBIx::Connector around. This means that every query will do a ping on the dbh first, but it will try and reconnect if it fails
      • that's pretty much exactly what it was doing before (except it might ping once if there are 3 transactions coming up)
      • warp
        ruaok: yes, I'm tethered though so cannot do much watching. but I am near computers all day.
      • warp has changed the topic to: http://musicbrainz.org/#devel | call warp if servers are crashing, telephone number on http://frob.nl
      • ruaok
        thanks! :)
      • warp: I would love to get your feedback about ocharles test stuff too. when you have a chance to review/whatnot.
      • warp
        ruaok: not kidding. test-routine introduces the weird redirect bug I've been fighting last week. I don't want that stuff in master until we know what that is.
      • ruaok
        ah!
      • ocharles
        if you can try and trace that today I'd really appreciate it, because I can't reproduce on any of my machines
      • ruaok
        ok, if its introduced crazy bugs that have already caused us to lose many hours hacking, I would really prefer to wait with these changes til post NGS.
      • we need stability now, not crazyness.
      • warp
        yes. I just put up my guess case stuff on code review. I'll start stepping when I'm going offline again in a few minutes.
      • ocharles
        this is for stability so I can actually run the test
      • +s
      • as it stands now half of them just fail
      • warp
        ruaok: in general the goal of the patch sounds very good, so I'm not opposed to having that in for NGS. just need to find that bug.
      • ocharles
        but I understand the reservations, for sure
      • warp: and see if that bug really is introduced by my direct changes, or not something latent that's just come to surface
      • ruaok
        ok, lets compare notes on this again tomorrow.
      • warp
        ocharles: how should I go about debugging this again?
      • ocharles nods