Now as I move files back and forth doing puid checks, all the dupes end up together, lots of (1), (2), etc. So last pass, load all into Picard, save+move, delete everything left behind (all the dupes).
2008-05-13 13443, 2008
BrianFreud
yllona: nope, just arranger, non specific :(
2008-05-13 13459, 2008
phatmonkey has quit
2008-05-13 13422, 2008
phatmonkey joined the channel
2008-05-13 13401, 2008
outsidecontext
brianfreud: could you live without it? the patch surely makes duplicate handling easier for most users as they get just displayed in picard
2008-05-13 13417, 2008
retfie has left the channel
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
tedrock has quit
2008-05-13 13459, 2008
tedrock joined the channel
2008-05-13 13400, 2008
luks
BrianFreud: how do you 'delete everything left behind'?
2008-05-13 13424, 2008
BrianFreud
well, I know I'm not the only one using it for dupe checking. I don't mind it, but it's not a bug (like the last dupe checker removed from Picard), it's a functionality change. Hence why I suggested a checkbox option.
2008-05-13 13459, 2008
BrianFreud
luks: save+move? If I'm moving with Picard from c:\foo to c:\bar, anything left at the end in c:\foo is the dupes
2008-05-13 13410, 2008
luks
oh
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
luks
this is based on the fact that picard doesn't not save/move 'unmatched files'
2008-05-13 13431, 2008
BrianFreud
yes
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
luks
but the soon-to-be-released 0.10 does save/move them
2008-05-13 13446, 2008
BrianFreud
oh?
2008-05-13 13456, 2008
luks
there was a ticket by fauxfaux
2008-05-13 13406, 2008
BrianFreud
lol, the last time you changed that behavior, I have to stop using the old method and switch to this...
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
BrianFreud
(based on how you'd changed the unmatched files behavior)... guess .10 breaks that
2008-05-13 13428, 2008
luks
I did change that before?
2008-05-13 13430, 2008
BrianFreud
yes
2008-05-13 13450, 2008
BrianFreud
I think I was the only one who ever noticed it on the last one though
but I don't understand how this 'dupe finder' can work in 0.9 then
2008-05-13 13421, 2008
BrianFreud
yes, that was the one
2008-05-13 13435, 2008
luks
oh oh
2008-05-13 13442, 2008
BrianFreud
it doesn't. That was pre-beta... 12? 14?
2008-05-13 13443, 2008
luks
the ticket was to NOT save them
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
luks is confused
2008-05-13 13414, 2008
BrianFreud
Back then, it moved them, but separated them into a new subtree which was safe to delete.
2008-05-13 13440, 2008
BrianFreud
As unmatched files works now, it doesn't move them at all, but they still end up segmented, old dir vs new dir, still easy to delete en mass
2008-05-13 13428, 2008
luks
still, how do you decide which one to keep and which one to delete
2008-05-13 13437, 2008
luks
they might have different bitrates, or even different formats
2008-05-13 13451, 2008
BrianFreud
Given that both are the same original, the only difference is in when Picard tagged them.
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
luks
and picard assigns them more or less randomly
2008-05-13 13444, 2008
BrianFreud
At least on Windows, when Picard is running the puid routines on a file, it locks the file. It does not always release that lock, however. As part of puid submission runs, I save twice.
2008-05-13 13421, 2008
luks
why there isn't a bug report about that? :(
2008-05-13 13437, 2008
BrianFreud
Figured it was an OS/QT issue, not Picard.
2008-05-13 13455, 2008
luks
Qt has nothing to do with files
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
luks
it might be a bug in ffmpeg, but it's still picard's responsibility to clean the locks up
2008-05-13 13443, 2008
BrianFreud
Load files. Move all to left. Scan files. Save files to \processed . Submit. Move all back to left. Rescan files, all with (now) puid-matches move to the right. Clear all those remaining on the left, fix any that loaded a new release (1 file:2 puid matches, etc), resave the remaining on the left to \puid-done
2008-05-13 13412, 2008
outsidecontext
unmatched files get saved only if selected directly, not if you save the album. but otherwise the behavior seems to be the same for 0.9 and soon to be 0.10
2008-05-13 13436, 2008
luks
outsidecontext: yeah, I was confused by that pre-0.9 ticket
2008-05-13 13457, 2008
BrianFreud
Somewhere in that process I end up with dupes. So once I've run \original and \processing through the mixer enough that both are finally left empty at the end of all this, rerun \puid-done through Picard, and save to \done. Now everything left in \puid-done is dupes.
2008-05-13 13417, 2008
luks
no wonder it takes you so long to get your library tagged :)
2008-05-13 13418, 2008
BrianFreud
but because metadata (at MB) gets updated, puids get embedded, etc, the dupes are not bitwise identical, so standard dupe utils don't catch them, too much variation between the tags.
2008-05-13 13419, 2008
outsidecontext
brianfreud: the goal of all this is to submit puids to MB, right?
2008-05-13 13423, 2008
BrianFreud
yes
2008-05-13 13448, 2008
outsidecontext is working on a PUID submission tool for picard
2008-05-13 13404, 2008
BrianFreud
luks: nah, the scans I run while I sleep - the rest takes only minutes. (Except saving itself, which is dog slow...only about 10/minute)
2008-05-13 13419, 2008
BrianFreud
outsidecontext: problem is, I want to segment those that have puids from those that don't
2008-05-13 13459, 2008
outsidecontext
awfully complicated and surely error prone process :)
2008-05-13 13403, 2008
BrianFreud
those which don't get matches from mip need another run through the mixer, or have something funky in their tags which needs to be fixed so the mixer and picard can gen and get puids
2008-05-13 13406, 2008
luks
BrianFreud: no, I mean all the passes, etc.
2008-05-13 13412, 2008
luks
just tag your files and be done with it :)
2008-05-13 13415, 2008
BrianFreud
lol
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
tedrock has quit
2008-05-13 13437, 2008
tedrock joined the channel
2008-05-13 13443, 2008
BrianFreud
well, in the process, I do benefit too - I catch those files with doubled tags, broken tags, broken initial vbr frames, etc
2008-05-13 13447, 2008
outsidecontext
i prefer having some button for calculating the PUIDs for all my collection, submit it and notify me if some files need a second pass
2008-05-13 13436, 2008
luks
outsidecontext: I have a prototype of a standalone c++ app for that. never finished it, obviously
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
yllona
how do i get the "please vote for box" to go awy? it's getting the way
2008-05-13 13455, 2008
BrianFreud
but I have, hmm, maybe 300 dvd's worth of post- \done files backed up now, so it works, even if slow
2008-05-13 13408, 2008
outsidecontext
luks: i have a prototype of a python app inside of picard, not finished yet, though
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
luks
yay for non-finished software :)
2008-05-13 13431, 2008
symphonick has quit
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
outsidecontext
:) yeah, it's the best
2008-05-13 13446, 2008
BrianFreud
luks, just curious... what happened to picard 0.8?
2008-05-13 13417, 2008
luks
I reserved that for possible wx-based picard update
2008-05-13 13433, 2008
luks
(if picardqt would fail)
2008-05-13 13437, 2008
BrianFreud
ah
2008-05-13 13425, 2008
BrianFreud
but then yeah, if you weren't aware of it, I can file a ticket on the lock not releasing.
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
BrianFreud
It does release when picard closes or crashes, but not always post-analysis
2008-05-13 13453, 2008
niklas
hello warp
2008-05-13 13402, 2008
warp
hello :)
2008-05-13 13405, 2008
niklas
just got your email
2008-05-13 13432, 2008
warp
you're fast :)
2008-05-13 13433, 2008
niklas
that script would be useful for testing.... and would allow me to focus on other things(at least to start with)
2008-05-13 13436, 2008
niklas
hehe
2008-05-13 13453, 2008
niklas
but Im not sure if this is okay
2008-05-13 13404, 2008
warp
niklas: why not?
2008-05-13 13412, 2008
niklas
good question :)
2008-05-13 13416, 2008
niklas
wanna confirm with some mentor
2008-05-13 13409, 2008
warp
niklas: re-using existing stuff is efficient, and generally a Good Thing. i'm sure there is enough work in the other bits, and especially if you just use my stuff for testing, there should be no trouble at all.
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
niklas
true
2008-05-13 13409, 2008
luks
stealing source code is what "Open Source" is based on...
2008-05-13 13429, 2008
niklas
anyways even if I for some reason have to write the tool myself I can focus on the server side at first, using your tool for testing
2008-05-13 13435, 2008
niklas
and then write a tool myself if required
2008-05-13 13438, 2008
BrianFreud
yeah, I'd tend to think OS style code-reuse would be encouraged, not forbidden, if it gets the work done better&faster
2008-05-13 13441, 2008
niklas
if this is not too much trouble for you
2008-05-13 13414, 2008
warp
niklas: if you could write up some kind of API document, i'll clean up my code a bit and implement that. i expect i can have something useful in an evening of hacking.
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
niklas
sure will. thank you.
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
warp
it's in python btw, but you probably guessed that already. it'll still be useful for testing :)
2008-05-13 13447, 2008
niklas
I figured :)
2008-05-13 13451, 2008
outsidecontext
brianfreud: can't we do one autoeditor election at a time?
why reject? the NIN release also requires you to provide a mail, and I believe it's linked in MB
2008-05-13 13432, 2008
warp
luks: i disagree with that one either then, obviously.
2008-05-13 13458, 2008
BrianFreud
outsidecontext: Given that 2 of the 3 were "pre-nominated" 4 days ago, I don't see anything objectionable in 3 at once.
2008-05-13 13443, 2008
outsidecontext
maybe I'm the only one, but i can't quite keep up with 3 at a time every few days
2008-05-13 13422, 2008
BrianFreud
well, it's only been one every 2 to 3 days, excluding the original group, this is the only time it's been 3 at a time since then
2008-05-13 13427, 2008
gioele
luks: the NIN torrents of ghosts does not require email addresses, dunno about the slip
2008-05-13 13457, 2008
outsidecontext
brianfreud: yeah, i just think it wouldn't hurt to only nominate one at a time. we have no hurry
2008-05-13 13411, 2008
BrianFreud
one at a time for the full week?
2008-05-13 13423, 2008
outsidecontext
gioele: the slip needs an email registration for download
2008-05-13 13400, 2008
BrianFreud
Given that almost everyone who is voting at all normally votes in the first 24 hours, I don't see the need.
2008-05-13 13403, 2008
outsidecontext
brianfreud: just not 3 at a time
2008-05-13 13408, 2008
warp
BrianFreud: i haven't checked nor voted on any of the recent nominations, don't have the time. i prefered the old nomination frequency really.
2008-05-13 13409, 2008
gioele
BrianFreud: I agree with outsidecontext. One at a time is more than enough
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
BrianFreud
sorry, I just don't see the need to limit it to one a week.
2008-05-13 13428, 2008
gioele
actually one a month would be better for me
2008-05-13 13449, 2008
BrianFreud
nor was that what we discussed a month ago on the list.
2008-05-13 13449, 2008
gioele
BrianFreud: it takes a lot of effort and time to do an editor review
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
warp agrees on the one a month nomination :)
2008-05-13 13454, 2008
BrianFreud
I understand.
2008-05-13 13422, 2008
warp
BrianFreud: i don't object to the higher frequency, i'm only stating that as a result, i will not be participating.
2008-05-13 13425, 2008
Creap has quit
2008-05-13 13430, 2008
outsidecontext
i won't vote on any editor i can not have a closer look
2008-05-13 13450, 2008
BrianFreud
but I think advance notice of intent to nominate 2 names on 5/9, with their actual nomination, plus 1 more person, on 5/13, is sufficient time in which to consider a whole 3 editors.
2008-05-13 13426, 2008
outsidecontext
i don't get it really why you want to rush this though. how many are left on your list?
2008-05-13 13436, 2008
BrianFreud
there were initially 107 iirc
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
BrianFreud
I don't have that drive hooked up at the moment to see how many are left though
2008-05-13 13400, 2008
outsidecontext
k
2008-05-13 13441, 2008
phatmonkey has quit
2008-05-13 13405, 2008
BrianFreud
I'm trying to keep the frequency to an average 2 to 3 days per. In this case, I'd said I wouldn't officially nominate any between fri and mon due to the summit - today's 3 simply were the two mentioned on 5/9, plus the one I had scheduled to nominate today. :)
2008-05-13 13452, 2008
luks
I don't think this is a good way to nominate autoeditors
2008-05-13 13409, 2008
BrianFreud
well, we've accepted all but 2.
2008-05-13 13416, 2008
BrianFreud
How would you suggest we nominate them?
2008-05-13 13450, 2008
luks
nominate people you know or vote on their edits
2008-05-13 13416, 2008
BrianFreud
that was the entire point - we've been doing just that, hence we had an autoeditor pool that was reflective of that.
2008-05-13 13419, 2008
luks
I just don't like doing it based on the number of accepted edits
2008-05-13 13439, 2008
BrianFreud
If you can think of a better way to find them, sure.
2008-05-13 13453, 2008
luks
who says there was something wrong with the old way?
2008-05-13 13459, 2008
luks
(exept you, obviously :))
2008-05-13 13419, 2008
BrianFreud
But we had a lot of autoeditors in certain areas - musically and geographically, with many areas totally unrepresented, so no autoeditors working there.
2008-05-13 13425, 2008
luks
if you can't find them, then there probably aren't any
2008-05-13 13440, 2008
luks
if makes no sense to nominate people nobody ever notice
2008-05-13 13451, 2008
luks
*it
2008-05-13 13438, 2008
BrianFreud
well, looking at pbryan, kurros, montesquieu, knakker, acid2, Muzz, PhantomOTO, chopinhauer, Shlublu, alphaseven, adan_aileron, t0n3t, chiark, and jongetje, I respectfully disagree.
2008-05-13 13458, 2008
Muzzz
My eeeears are burning!
2008-05-13 13404, 2008
pbryan
So are mine!
2008-05-13 13416, 2008
luks
I see it as the usual 'looking for a problem where there isn't one', but that's just me
