Just add the disk number to each track and merge into one release.
2009-03-09 06810, 2009
catgroove
EEEWWWWW
2009-03-09 06813, 2009
catgroove
what?
2009-03-09 06825, 2009
Muz
Munger1: on what level?
2009-03-09 06828, 2009
FauxFaux
YES.
2009-03-09 06828, 2009
warp hits Munger1 on the head with a pillow.
2009-03-09 06838, 2009
catgroove chuckles at warp
2009-03-09 06839, 2009
Muz
Grouping on MB, on your local FS, within your media player?
2009-03-09 06858, 2009
cooperaa
Munger1: you're using itunes aren't you?
2009-03-09 06802, 2009
Munger1
Create a field in each trac with the disk number. That uniquely identifies each track withing the set
2009-03-09 06804, 2009
FauxFaux
1. - Artist 1 vs. Artist 2 - Track 1 (disc 1) / Track 2 (disc 2).
2009-03-09 06814, 2009
catgroove
LMAO faux
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
Munger1
i.e. disc 2 track 1
2009-03-09 06823, 2009
nikki
Munger1: and the disc titles?
2009-03-09 06831, 2009
Muz
Munger1: sure saves messing up the disc titles that way.
2009-03-09 06846, 2009
catgroove
not
2009-03-09 06846, 2009
warp
and the per disc catalog #?
2009-03-09 06847, 2009
Munger1
That's an AR *if* it differs from the title of the set
2009-03-09 06854, 2009
FauxFaux
Or, to drive brianfreud insane, (disc 2 Dirty South remix).
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
Muz
That said, "Track number" is an awfully shit parameter on its own, it should include subtypes for "side" or "disc number" with a default of 1.
2009-03-09 06859, 2009
warp
and discids? :)
2009-03-09 06805, 2009
brianfreud
lol
2009-03-09 06806, 2009
catgroove
yea
2009-03-09 06810, 2009
Munger1
'Disc 1 of this set is titled 'foo'
2009-03-09 06815, 2009
warp
Muz: also shouldn't be a number.
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
FauxFaux
Muz: Like ProD3!
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
catgroove
in the *track* name?
2009-03-09 06837, 2009
catgroove
disc yellow and disc blue, wasn't there a release like that
2009-03-09 06842, 2009
Muz
warp: and another parameter "disc title" then ;)
2009-03-09 06843, 2009
FauxFaux
Just accidentally the lamby and use sha1sums for the entire filename.
2009-03-09 06850, 2009
brianfreud
FauxFaux: insane, (disc 2 Dirty South remix). -> Brianfreud Insane (disc 2: Dirty South Remix.) (live output :P)
2009-03-09 06858, 2009
Muz
warp: so you can have multiple disc titles in a multiple disc set with miltiple discs.
2009-03-09 06801, 2009
Muz
Yo dawg...
2009-03-09 06804, 2009
warp
Muz: i meant the track number shouldn't be.
2009-03-09 06807, 2009
Muz
I herd u liek dags.
2009-03-09 06810, 2009
FauxFaux
Heh, where's that fullstop coming from? :p
2009-03-09 06817, 2009
FauxFaux
Oh, there. Duh.
2009-03-09 06823, 2009
Munger1
The disc number is a standard ID3 tag, which appears in every track. It seems reasonable to support it at the track level in MB as well
2009-03-09 06840, 2009
catgroove accidentallies the disc title
2009-03-09 06803, 2009
drum joined the channel
2009-03-09 06813, 2009
catgroove hits drum
2009-03-09 06817, 2009
catgroove
sorry guy,
2009-03-09 06818, 2009
catgroove
:D
2009-03-09 06832, 2009
luks
Munger1: that's database denormalization to the maximum :)
2009-03-09 06842, 2009
nikki
hey luks!
2009-03-09 06848, 2009
catgroove
hey nikki
2009-03-09 06853, 2009
nikki
hey catgroove
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
luks
hi
2009-03-09 06857, 2009
Munger1
You buy a a three disc album. They come in one box. Why not put them in the same box in the database?
2009-03-09 06859, 2009
catgroove
hey warp
2009-03-09 06812, 2009
catgroove
Munger1 dood, uh that'ss
2009-03-09 06816, 2009
nikki
Munger1: simply because that hasn't been implemented yet :P
2009-03-09 06820, 2009
catgroove
yea
2009-03-09 06841, 2009
catgroove suddenly really wants lefse, oh man
2009-03-09 06841, 2009
luks
Munger1: that's the point, you buy three discs in one box, not 3*x numbered tracks
2009-03-09 06850, 2009
catgroove
indeed
2009-03-09 06854, 2009
Muz
lefse.cx
2009-03-09 06803, 2009
Munger1
I know that, but it sure makes more sense than splitting a release into separate releases, when all the disks have the same catalog number
2009-03-09 06805, 2009
catgroove
probably not the same thing, muz
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
catgroove
eh, i disaagree
2009-03-09 06821, 2009
nikki
and unless things have changed again, release groups will include grouping discs into one release
2009-03-09 06829, 2009
catgroove
wtf go away exttra a
2009-03-09 06835, 2009
catgroove
yes
2009-03-09 06838, 2009
luks
Munger1: the current way of handling releases is very far from ideal, and I think we are all aware of that :)
2009-03-09 06846, 2009
Munger1
luks. The track is uniquely identified by the disk number + the track number. That's how most players order them
2009-03-09 06811, 2009
luks
that's not what the real world entities are, though
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
Munger1
Like with a vinylo,, track 3 on side 2
2009-03-09 06820, 2009
brianfreud
Munger1: you can always add the disc number in to the track yourself, locally, using the disc number plugin
2009-03-09 06826, 2009
luks
you buy a release, and this release has multiple CDs
2009-03-09 06834, 2009
luks
and each CD has multiple tracks
2009-03-09 06837, 2009
brianfreud
1-01, instead just just 01
2009-03-09 06854, 2009
Muz wonders how you handle multi-sided CDs as part of a multi-disc release.
2009-03-09 06858, 2009
Muz
Yes, it does exist.
2009-03-09 06809, 2009
Munger1
What is the discnum id3 tag for?
2009-03-09 06816, 2009
Muz
Just like how you can get dual layered discs with DVDs on one side, and CDs on another.
2009-03-09 06821, 2009
Muz
Munger1: not vinyl sides.
2009-03-09 06826, 2009
luks
Munger1: file tags are a denormalized view
2009-03-09 06831, 2009
Muz
Or cassette sides for that matter.
2009-03-09 06856, 2009
luks
that's the only way you can do it for files, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to a database
2009-03-09 06803, 2009
drum has left the channel
2009-03-09 06805, 2009
luks
*for
2009-03-09 06816, 2009
brianfreud suddenly wonders why we give each side of an LP a new disc, but not for tapes...
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
catgroove
luks is right
2009-03-09 06827, 2009
cooperaa
brianfreud: we don't
2009-03-09 06831, 2009
catgroove
brianfreud .. we don't
2009-03-09 06836, 2009
catgroove
really DONT
2009-03-09 06836, 2009
cooperaa
we give separate pieces of plastic different disc numbers
2009-03-09 06837, 2009
luks
we don't! :)
2009-03-09 06849, 2009
catgroove looks suspiciously at brianfreud
2009-03-09 06853, 2009
cooperaa
lol
2009-03-09 06856, 2009
warp
brianfreud: we don't.
2009-03-09 06858, 2009
nikki
did you know we don't?
2009-03-09 06859, 2009
brianfreud smacks himself upside the head, realizes he needs more coffee
2009-03-09 06807, 2009
warp
hihi
2009-03-09 06808, 2009
cooperaa
ah!
2009-03-09 06812, 2009
brianfreud
lol + lol
2009-03-09 06817, 2009
Munger1
luks. Explain to me why it's a bad idea for a database? How is it worse than having two disks as separate entitties linked by some abstract relationship. Currently, if disk 2 of 3 is not one the system, the relashionships are hosed
2009-03-09 06842, 2009
warp
Munger1: the current system is also a bad idea. you shouldn't compare the two.
Munger1: to fix that situation, you would just add disc
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
cooperaa
2
2009-03-09 06803, 2009
Munger1
Munger1 is now known as Munger
2009-03-09 06806, 2009
nikki
the current system is just inherited from mb's origins - looking up cds
2009-03-09 06807, 2009
warp
luks++
2009-03-09 06811, 2009
catgroove
and it's comming to group discs
2009-03-09 06813, 2009
luks
the current is wrong, but what you are proposing is even worse
2009-03-09 06818, 2009
catgroove
indeed
2009-03-09 06836, 2009
catgroove
man i like the way luks' ting was
2009-03-09 06842, 2009
catgroove
very simplistic
2009-03-09 06858, 2009
catgroove
ome confusion, true, would still need work
2009-03-09 06859, 2009
Muz doesn't get how people can throw agreement about someone's elses opinions about database design when they know next to nothing about it themselves.
2009-03-09 06802, 2009
catgroove
but yes
2009-03-09 06841, 2009
Munger
Nobody has yet explained to me why the id3 standard includes the discnum tag if it is such a bad idea.
2009-03-09 06857, 2009
catgroove
are you intentionally ribbing me? for your information i wasn't talking about the lin khe gave when i said "luks is right" i was refering to his logic
2009-03-09 06800, 2009
warp
file tags are not databases?
2009-03-09 06809, 2009
catgroove
despite not gknowing shit all about coding, i am not a moron, go figure
2009-03-09 06819, 2009
brianfreud
Munger: id3 started out as a hack
2009-03-09 06854, 2009
Muz
catgroove: no, I'm just generally speaking here. It's not just database design to be honest.
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
srotta
And ID3 doesn't have relations.
2009-03-09 06800, 2009
drum joined the channel
2009-03-09 06801, 2009
catgroove
funny, as i'm the only one here not in the know about "databases" that was agreeing to luks'statements, but whatever
2009-03-09 06825, 2009
Kerensky97
no, I'm in the same boat. ;)
2009-03-09 06828, 2009
catgroove
it's ok
2009-03-09 06834, 2009
catgroove
lol Kerensky97 :)
2009-03-09 06843, 2009
catgroove
i bet you'd get it way more than me though :)
2009-03-09 06849, 2009
Munger
It did, but it's basically a working hack. Like it or not, you can be a purist about database design, but when most people think about a particular track, they think of it as 'track 3 on disc 2 on that album'. They don't see the album as two distinct entities. Trying to abstract the real world model into something that is not is simply complicating the issue
2009-03-09 06814, 2009
cooperaa
anyone out there want to do some editing?
2009-03-09 06815, 2009
catgroove
munger: i don't usuallly think abotu a trackas track so and so on disc so and so, realy
2009-03-09 06815, 2009
luks
catgroove: you don't have to know much about databases to see that duplicating the same information over all tracks in a release is wrong :)
2009-03-09 06824, 2009
catgroove
luks: yes!
2009-03-09 06835, 2009
cooperaa
I've got these two releases opened as tabs that I want to close...
2009-03-09 06839, 2009
cooperaa
but I can't until they're fixed!
2009-03-09 06847, 2009
brianfreud
Munger: not true. a) I don't, and b) you assume that that track always is track 3, not 2 or 4
munger: yes, we know, the thing is ,the fix for this is already planned, to group discs in a release and group releases into "album" (or single or epe, whatever)
2009-03-09 06828, 2009
catgroove
abstraction levels of logic
2009-03-09 06830, 2009
brianfreud
lol, can I pass it on to creature
2009-03-09 06831, 2009
brianfreud
?
2009-03-09 06832, 2009
Munger
brianfreud, I have a boxed set in front of me. Track 1 on the first disk is the same track it was 3 years ago when I bought album :-)
2009-03-09 06838, 2009
creature
Eh?
2009-03-09 06849, 2009
cooperaa
delegated! have fun creature
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
creature
I'm not touching that.
2009-03-09 06855, 2009
catgroove
staakars creature
2009-03-09 06856, 2009
drum has quit
2009-03-09 06816, 2009
luks
Munger: the fun starts when you have another release with the same disc
2009-03-09 06816, 2009
cooperaa
creature: I'm going to close the tab with a clear conscience, knowing that you'll take good care of that release :)
2009-03-09 06826, 2009
catgroove
munger: it is not, it's the same track as track 5 o some other release, it's the same track as 3 on the ingle, etc
