#musicbrainz

my only solace is that when real collabs come Some Day™ we can (mostly) automagically turn them into that

Hello, I have trouble getting this release into picard, anyone have an idea as to why?

upgrade to 0.11

0.10 doesn't handle release events without date

Aha. Hmmm running gentoo, see what I have to do. Thanks!

probably compile from scratch, so yeah, can't help you there :)

There's no 0.11 in gentoo, guess I'll wait.

Write a new ebuild is the option, I guess.

don't htink there's a lot of releases affected by it anyway, it wasn't possible until three weeks ago

you'll get more and more with that, though

the other option is to figure out the date and enter it :P

MClemo: well it's not like repos will keep 0.10 forever :)

also, amazon has the release so can use that date

I'm sure it is 1979, adding that is safe then?

for the cd release? :p

for the european relese

the annotation says the 90s

so I guess not

Yeah, you're of course right.

89 is pretty close to the 90s, not sure how much I trust an annotators fuzzy memory

and which amazon? there are three which cover parts of europe :P

that's a uk barcode

89?

oh hey, partial stars, neat

where did you get 89 from?

ah, I was looking at the wrong one

could someone give me a hint about capitalization with this release: http://www.discogs.com/release/58836

?

i don't have the physical CD so i can't say anything about the capitalisation there

"guess case" would change it slightly, now I'm not sure what has precedence

sorry for asking such a standard case :)

aha more interesting thing:

this release: http://musicbrainz.org/release/401f1131-8509-4c...

is not listed on the artist's info page

why is that?

Milosz: guess case is mostly correct

and because the release is set to Remix

Ok i get it

it's something in between of a release by the original artist and the remixer, semantically

info page only shows album/ep/single/comp by default, you have to click "show all releases" at the top if you want to see soundtracks, remixes, live, etc.

i guess

ah that

remix release type is disputed to put it like that

some might call that a comp instead

as a quick off vote i'd include in the default listing

the problem is the corner cases who have fifty billion releases

you might say the same about live releases, except metallica has hundreds of live official releases

ok but.. for me it still seems arbitrary, because there are surely also many artists (if not most) who don't have such a huge number of Live/Remix

of course i understand the practical problem though...

it's far from a perfect solution, but it works fine for most cases

there's been quite a few S&M adds because people can't find it on metallica's page though ;)

I wonder why we don't show all releases where the artist is the album artist by default...

I always thought we had the limited view to get rid of all the various artists albums artists usually have

there's only ~30 va albums on metallica's page, the remaining 1.2MiB is all them

it's a good point

it goes hand in hand with my first idea that it was about attribution

where i said: "<Milosz> it's something in between of a release by the original artist and the remixer, semantically"

it's not the same point but similar thing

Muzzz: ahhh

erm

dunno why that was at Muzz o.O

anyway, can finally get back to TT development \o/

yay for tertm being finished

O.o

Stop thinking about me! D:

Never gonna...

aCiD2: and I've been made redundant, so I can too :P

I saw :(

MBChatLogger: off

is not logging

is logging

And that's ohow I cured cancer

me and Muzzz and a supernatural brain connection

Hahah, how?

Well, i have 3 drives, my external, my windows one and the linux one

the windows and the external turned out to have the same partition layout, and I wanted to format the windows drive

but it turned out I formatted the external D:

i could get some recovery stuff, but I cba

I've lost my AWS key :/

get another?

Which is a pain in the arse as I'm working on a giant Amazon / MB hack

I'd rather not if can avoud it

I've been drining free drinks since noon too

anyone have any idea why i have no images on my mb server. the images directory seems to have the images if i check it from a terminal. They're just not displaying

I think it has an alias for /images by default

Probably the default /immages alis in apache

i can't see anything in there for it

check it's not including conf files from somewhere else

The only conf i can see that is being loaded is rewrite.conf but i cant see anything in there for it

[Sun Dec 14 15:32:58 2008] [error] [client 192.168.3.2] File does not exist: /usr/share/images/header_logo_a.gif

seems to be looking for the images in /usr/share/

i get no such file or directory when i run that :D

nevermind fixed it

its apache-perl not apache doh!

hmm, I didn't know grep had a -r. /me always uses find |xargs grep

xargs cat | grep

whats the script to download the replication packets again?

slave?

./admin/cron/slave/sh

*slave.h

*slahve.sh

Oh god

Tee hee.

You know wha tI mean

lol

I'd love to know how that third one happened.

FLASHING. LIGHTS.

[15:41] <Muzzz> *sla

oops

...

You've just been quoted elsewhere. ¬_¬

That's how

Either that, or someone just failed epically at copy'n'paste to a terminal. :p

Muzzz: What?! I just got up. ¬_¬

I've been drinking since 12 D:

i meant to copy the error from the terminal to here lol

anyway i get this error http://musicbrainz.pastebin.com/md1f6715

mmm

these airwaves black mint are GOOOD

you are all on drugs!§

clearly i need more pokemon

<-- yes? insane

Your mum's black mint

should there have been an 'a' in that sentance?

Possibly

I accidentally the entire verb

yay I made a bug ticket, go me!

yay!

"a" isn't a verb