reosarevok: Maybe pending edits that potentially conflict might still show up, but be highlighted in some appropriate colour?
2017-03-01 06018, 2017
reosarevok
CardinalWolseley: I more mean: what do you do if you have two open edits, one changing a title from Foo to Bar, and one from Foo to Foot
2017-03-01 06020, 2017
JonnyJD joined the channel
2017-03-01 06036, 2017
reosarevok
I guess it could somehow show both side by side but that's extra complexity to add :)
2017-03-01 06008, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I would suggest that if the edit to change Foo to Foot is the most recent, then that would show up, but be highlighted to indicate the possible conflict. Anyone interested could check the edit history.
2017-03-01 06022, 2017
CallerNo6
For the more general question, "what does an edit like this do, and what will it look like?", the sandboxes (when they're back) are great for that.
2017-03-01 06027, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Yeh, that's really the point. "What does an edit like this do and what will it look like"? I'm struggling with that right now.
2017-03-01 06015, 2017
CallerNo6
You can try edits on MusicBrainz Test Artist if that helps.
(sorry, don't mean to derail a productive brainstorm)
2017-03-01 06054, 2017
CallerNo6
(wait, I mean "a productive train of thought". curses.)
2017-03-01 06040, 2017
CallerNo6
(mixed metadata: good. mixed metaphor: bad. I keep getting that backwards.)
2017-03-01 06002, 2017
Leftmost
But what is metadataphor?
2017-03-01 06024, 2017
Leftmost is not proud of that.
2017-03-01 06024, 2017
psolanki has quit
2017-03-01 06048, 2017
CardinalWolseley
CallerNo6: That won't really help me. I'm currently working through I huge pile of edits I want to do, and sometimes I feel like I'm just losing track of where I am. I look at something and wonder if I've already edited it, and if so, whether I've edited it correctly.
2017-03-01 06026, 2017
CardinalWolseley
CallerNo6: But the biggest bugaboo for me is merges. I'm still holding off ding it because I have a number of uncertainties and I recognize the potential for a major screwup.
2017-03-01 06022, 2017
albertus1 joined the channel
2017-03-01 06023, 2017
Jinx has quit
2017-03-01 06024, 2017
albertus1 has quit
2017-03-01 06043, 2017
albertus1 joined the channel
2017-03-01 06008, 2017
arbenina_ has quit
2017-03-01 06021, 2017
loujine_ joined the channel
2017-03-01 06001, 2017
Muz_ joined the channel
2017-03-01 06003, 2017
rubdos_ has quit
2017-03-01 06005, 2017
Afterster_ joined the channel
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
samphippen joined the channel
2017-03-01 06005, 2017
fs has quit
2017-03-01 06005, 2017
Afterster has quit
2017-03-01 06005, 2017
samphipp1n has quit
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
Muz has quit
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
loujine has quit
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
Afterster_ is now known as Afterster
2017-03-01 06011, 2017
rubdos joined the channel
2017-03-01 06057, 2017
Zastai joined the channel
2017-03-01 06038, 2017
amanmehta has quit
2017-03-01 06046, 2017
Zastai has quit
2017-03-01 06057, 2017
sparklyballs has quit
2017-03-01 06046, 2017
CatQuest has quit
2017-03-01 06041, 2017
CatQuest joined the channel
2017-03-01 06041, 2017
CatQuest has quit
2017-03-01 06041, 2017
CatQuest joined the channel
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Does anybody have time to spend with me and hand-hold me through some merging issues?
2017-03-01 06059, 2017
CallerNo6
CardinalWolseley, (speaking only for myself of course) not right this minute, but would be happy to. It would double as a "what are the docs failing to explain?" session.
2017-03-01 06038, 2017
CardinalWolseley
CallerNo6: Sure. When would be good for you?
2017-03-01 06029, 2017
sparklyballs joined the channel
2017-03-01 06048, 2017
sparklyballs has quit
2017-03-01 06033, 2017
sparklyballs joined the channel
2017-03-01 06020, 2017
matoro has quit
2017-03-01 06044, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
CardinalWolseley: I've got time. What do you need?
2017-03-01 06009, 2017
CardinalWolseley
You want to do this in the main window, or go private?
2017-03-01 06023, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
As long as it's not sensitive info, it can stay here
2017-03-01 06030, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
That way others can weigh in
2017-03-01 06049, 2017
CardinalWolseley
OK. Let me take you through where I am and what I'm thinking about.
So now I have two copies of the same release, and two copies of the same work.
2017-03-01 06004, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
You can merge the releases, and merge the works
2017-03-01 06018, 2017
CardinalWolseley
In each case, one has slightly better relationships, both more complete and better connected.
2017-03-01 06025, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
When merging the releases, you have the option of merging the mediums and recordings with it
2017-03-01 06039, 2017
CardinalWolseley
So I need to be walked through the merging process so I know what is going happen
2017-03-01 06044, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
Merging them won't remove any relationships
2017-03-01 06053, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
They'll just get carried over to the target
2017-03-01 06025, 2017
CardinalWolseley
So, I have to remove any relationships I don't want. Should I do thos before the merge or afterwards
2017-03-01 06027, 2017
simukis__ has quit
2017-03-01 06031, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
No, you don't
2017-03-01 06048, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
Just enter the merge
2017-03-01 06056, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
The relationships will stay where they are
2017-03-01 06017, 2017
CardinalWolseley
What about the titles (whether releases or works). Will one title remain and the other get dumped?
2017-03-01 06051, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
The title will be whatever the merge target (i.e. the release or work you're merging into) has
2017-03-01 06011, 2017
CardinalWolseley
What about disambiguation commenbts?
2017-03-01 06019, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
They'll carry over as well
2017-03-01 06008, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
scratch that; they won
2017-03-01 06010, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
won't
2017-03-01 06013, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I'm failing to understand something here. After the merge, will I have only one merged entity, or will both entities still separately exist, but with somthing connecting them in MB?
2017-03-01 06033, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
Merging is taking two or more entities and combining them into one
Yes, and it left me with more questions than answers. It is one of those things that makes perfect sense to someone who knows exactly what it all means in the first place. Me, I'm left confused.
2017-03-01 06006, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
What exactly is it that confuses you?
2017-03-01 06032, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I can't see what the end result will be. Suppose the title of one release is "FRED" and is has a dismbiguation comment "big fred". And the title of the second release is "Fred" and the dismbiguation comment ios "little fred". What will happen when I merge them?
2017-03-01 06022, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
The disambiguation comment for the target will be retained (the one from the other entity will be lost)
2017-03-01 06037, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
E.g. if you merge into "Big Fred", the "Little Fred" disambiguation will be lost
2017-03-01 06038, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Oh that's good.
2017-03-01 06004, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Now, suppose FRED is associated with a work "FRED's WORK", whereas Fred is associated with a work "Fred's Work". And further suppose that both of those works are the same thing (and therefore also need to be merged). What happens in that scenario/
2017-03-01 06044, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
If you merge the releases and do nothing to the works, the recordings will be linked to both works simultaneously
2017-03-01 06020, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
i.e. they'll be associated with both "FRED'S WORK" and "Fred's Work" at the same time
2017-03-01 06026, 2017
CardinalWolseley
OK. So do I have to merge the Works before I merge the releases?
2017-03-01 06029, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
No
2017-03-01 06043, 2017
CardinalWolseley
NO? So do I remove the relationship with the unwanted duplicate work after the merge?
2017-03-01 06001, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
If you merge the works, the relationships will become combined
2017-03-01 06017, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I don't follow that.
2017-03-01 06049, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
Just merge the works, and after the merge goes through the relationship with the duplicate work will be lost
2017-03-01 06011, 2017
reosarevok
After merging, you'd have two relationships pointing to what is now the same work
2017-03-01 06035, 2017
reosarevok
So, assuming they're not conflicting in some way (like having different dates specified) one will just be dropped because they'd just be the same
2017-03-01 06003, 2017
CardinalWolseley
OK, that's good. So, now merging works .... suppose each Work has four Parts associated with it. What happens to the parts when I merge the works?
2017-03-01 06003, 2017
reosarevok
(if one says "recording in 2010" and the other "recording in 2011", they're different, so both will stay)
2017-03-01 06012, 2017
reosarevok
They need to be merged separately
2017-03-01 06038, 2017
reosarevok
Since that's just another relationship, after the merge you'd have 8 works all pointing as "part of" to the same one work
2017-03-01 06052, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
From there you can merge away the duplicate parts
2017-03-01 06005, 2017
reosarevok
And you don't need to wait for the parent work merge to go through - it's safe to merge the parts at the same time
2017-03-01 06053, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I'm not sure about the "top-down" strategy as opposed to "bottom up". Top-down says I merge the releases, and then merge any duplicated I get in the resulting relationships. It seems to be better controlled to merge the lower-level worls first before merging the releases, no?
2017-03-01 06019, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
It doesn't really matter; they won't interfere with each other
2017-03-01 06027, 2017
reosarevok
If the works are (pair by pair) the same, they should be merged, regardless of what they're otherwise linked to
2017-03-01 06035, 2017
reosarevok
Same applies to the releases
2017-03-01 06053, 2017
reosarevok
There are very few cases where merging order matters
2017-03-01 06018, 2017
CardinalWolseley
OK, I'm going to try that with the specific examples I posted links for, since they don't have any additional links that I need to worry about.
2017-03-01 06046, 2017
reosarevok
(the only one that comes to mind is: if you add a merge for X into Y, and then try to merge Z into X, and X gets merged into Y first, Z into X will fail because X doesn't exist anymore)
2017-03-01 06027, 2017
CardinalWolseley
This is where it might get confusing that the merges will be pending dits for the first week, and so I'm not sure exactly what I will be seeing after I merge the releases first and then set about trying to merge the works.
2017-03-01 06043, 2017
reosarevok
(so, if you're merging more than two works, recordings or whatever into the same one, it's ideal to do them all in one go - but if you find one more later on that still needs to be merged, you should always merge it into the *same* you're merging the rest into)
2017-03-01 06004, 2017
reosarevok
Just orange-marked releases and works, really
2017-03-01 06007, 2017
CardinalWolseley
OK, I follow that.
2017-03-01 06034, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I'm going to jump in and do this and if I get any red flags I'll mention them here.
2017-03-01 06055, 2017
reosarevok
Sounds good :) I'll go to sleep but I'm sure you'll get enough help anyway
2017-03-01 06058, 2017
hibiscuskazeneko
You shouldn't get any
2017-03-01 06020, 2017
reosarevok
If there's something very classical-specific you do need me for, just mention my nick and I'll see it in the morning!
2017-03-01 06010, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Yes, what I'm doing is specifically classical. I'm trying to get all the Bruckner Symphonies into shape :)
See, the next thing I have to do is merge the two works to which the recordings in the two releases are associated. I can either wait a week and see whether everything looks kosher and then merge the Works, or I can merge them now and risk finding a mess in a week's time.
2017-03-01 06037, 2017
CardinalWolseley
I don't get this IRC thing. I type a message and by the time I look up there is another message between mine and the one I'm answering.
2017-03-01 06000, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Its like I suddenly have to go back to MS-DOS to talk to Musicbrainz :)
2017-03-01 06017, 2017
CardinalWolseley
Feels so desperately outdated./
2017-03-01 06020, 2017
Leo_Verto
I doubt editing the release you're merging into would result in a mess
2017-03-01 06044, 2017
Leo_Verto
and IRC is great because it Just Works™ :P
2017-03-01 06023, 2017
Leo_Verto
but you have a third option, you could get three unanimous yes votes on your edit to accelerate the merge
