#musicbrainz

aCiD2: I'm not coding for it, so that's fine by me ;)

heh

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

joan strokes mo

current lyrics are "Go back to sleep"

seems appropriate :P

lol acid

Cleo - our female cat has just jumped up on the table and walked all over the keyboard. She has now got down and is heading towards bed, which is where she wants me to go

xD

XD

we are all insomniacs in Europe

jaaaaaa~

I actually get stuff done at 1am

Must be all the meat hormones

in the day I can't do shit, I'm just a big potato

for some reason

huhuhuh you said.. never mind -_-

You know what it is muzz - the Americans don't have staying power

you havea ball room in your office, doesnt coun

t

hahahahha true :p

CatCat: that's on the other side of the office

I sit in the dark corner with my back to no one

Muzzz: bring a laptop

FFS

Haw haw

jøss, they have 10 now?

for Vista, yea

been a while sincei palyed soem games

Only for Vista, mind

Beaten to it :(

pfft vista = epic not win

:P

OK

BED

TIMEs

NÅ

natta crazy cats and kitties!

natta mo

nattamo

Bedtime for me too - natta all

Something really funky is going on here. I can load a pixel shader with the code "ROFLLOL" and it still returns a HRESULT of S_OK :S

Night JoanW

I clearly don't know Javascript, perhaps it's time to learn.

hmmm. submitting PDF for GSoc... off to a bad start. :-)

lol

ruaok: is puid stuff supposed to work in that picard dmg you made a couple of weeks ago?

I got it to run after installing iconv from ports and setting some variable... dyld_library_path or something

it should

pastebin a error if not

ah, it was saying "W: <sip.voidptr object at 0x21a430> 09:13:35 No decoders found! Fingerprinting will be disabled." earlier, but now it's working 'cause I installed ffmpeg from ports too

good job nikki, i got stuck on the build :)

MrQwerty` is now known as MrQwerty

i blame _you_ for me not being in dreamland right now. mkay, just popped in to say this, i'm gonna eat a bit more chocolate & go back to bed ^^

Anytime. \o/

well, i lied. i'm still here... meh, work really puts sticks in the wheels of a geek

almost 4 am and work today

welcome to the club :p

although, it's almost 0500 over here, and work today :p

Heh

Software overclocking != good idea

*sigh*, 100 grams of chocolate gone, guess i'll try the bed again :s

pbryan: I haven't caught up with the whole box-set thread yet, but I think your "earliest release date" idea seems like a reasonable way to settle on a release title, assuming we merge everything. (Does your proposal assume that we merge everything?)

mikemorr: Thanks, I'm glad someone's taken notice of it.

My proposal assumes that both versions of the disc is one release.

With multiple release events.

And, this only makes sense.

Otherwise, we're duplicating massive amounts of AR data across cloned releases.

Feel free to give the idea some love on the mailing list.

:)

Hopefully we will be able to have multiple titles per release (one title per release event), so this will all be a moot point?

In the meantime, I could see going either way: merge everything, or split out every variation a la Discogs.

pbryan / mikemorr: I disagree

nothing in "allow box sets to exist" says anything about "create a new entry for each and every release of a release"

But to simply say "use whatever version of a release came earliest" also makes no sense.

It ignores that a) some boxes contain some discs which came earlier, plus some that end up being separately released later

and b) some boxes (esp in classical) completely give no indication that they are reissues of earlier releases.

Well, this assumes that the box set version is the correct naming for the release title.

Or the preferred.

I'm not convinced that this should be the case.

Even I would veto any RFV that suggested non-box versions be merged into box versions, if I understood you correctly just now :)

Cool. :)

This is a similar problem set to the variations of track title over time, no?

I simply don't see what is so bad about "let both exist until some better solution can be found - multiple release titles, etc"

"Scarecrow" vs. "The Scarecrow" to name a recent one.

a variation, but an important one

Should Pipers be split into two versions?

I say, no.

The track was originally called something, that's definitive enough for me, at least for the "official" name of the track.

I understand leivhe's point of view; he wants to protect the smaller from being merged into the box. That I agree with, even though I did toss that concept out several weeks back in brainstorming.

As do I.

But my point is, if someone is entering a box, they are entering a box. That box, esp when it gives no indication of prior release, is a totally separate entity.

Well, that prefers the person who happened to enter the disc in first.

It ought to not be merged smaller, nor ought editors be telling other editors that the guidelines instruct them to do so.

That's an interesting principle.

not really

why is there any preference given at all?

Okay, deference?

If we allow both the boxed and the unboxed versions to exist, all it means is that someone chose to add either a box or an unboxed version.

It doesn't block someone else later adding the opposing type

And now, someone's got to enter AR data twice.

not for long

As someone who's toiled through that on a few releases now, I can say how truly painful that is.

track masters.... coming soon to a theater near you :)

Great, and when it comes, it will frame this argument differently.

pbryan: I know that pain; I AR'd an entire 180 CD classical box set.

Ouch.

But in today's world, it seems wrong to duplicate otherwise identical releases simply because of the way we want to entitle the release.

But for someone to then come and decide "oh, discs 149 and 173 are the same discs as released in 1982 as "foo", let me merge the box set discs away" - no way in hell.

but the releases are not the same.

The titles are different. What else/

s/\//?/

The box set disc happens to have the same tracklist, but it is 1/nth of the release. In the non-box version, it is 1/1th of the release.