#musicbrainz

I'm merging recordings and removing

some more googling suggests that "headphones" is also an MB indexer. I do hope this rembo10 character is using his own MB server setup instead of hitting the main website

Haha

Well, now yes, mostly

(because they suddenly sent insane amounts of requests so we started ratelimiting them to hell and back)

lets just say that... we've applied some convincing in that direction from our side.

:-)

at what point does a pirate rip of disc 2 warrant a new RG?

(if any)

Well, a bootleg RG isn't even displayed by default so whatever :p

well I can't find a CD it would be from

(arguably never though? But dunno - I'm a bit confused with bootlegs in general)

it seems to be a real bootleg (material unfound elsewhere), not just a rip

still it shares 7/11 recordings

Hmm

I'd probably leave it as a separate RG in that case, since I doubt anyone would see it as an equivalent of the whole (2xCD?) thing

But honestly it barely matters :p

I guess, yeah, I'd rather have it out of the main RG.

that wikipedia link is bad request tho :(

which one?

nvm i see it

looks like the edit note editor maps the kanji to html escapes but then doesn't handle them properly. the link on the RG works tho: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/8f9464f5-3...

Enter a ticket if it's broken I guess

must've mispasted in first edit note - link does work in the second note I just added

(but unlike a WP link on a release page, the edit not overview shows the raw escapes instead of the kanji)

lots and lots of 502s yesterday and today :-(

yep. loads

reosarevok, ping

Leftmost, pong

Hey. We were discussing how to go about putting together style documents for BB on Friday and thought that asking you for feedback/suggestions would be a good idea.

Basically, we're not sure how to structure discussion to avoid the pitfalls of requiring consensus while still striving for it.

Well, don't require it would be my suggestion :p

Get someone (ideally not just one person but a small group, 3?) to decide

Definitely do approach everyone for suggestions and opinions, mind - but just make sure that you have a structure so that one person complaining very loudly doesn't derail the whole thing

Of course, some sort of proper voting system might work too, but we haven't been able to play with that much (as you might have seen the best we have for style votes are wiki pages :p)

So I can't say it'd work or not, but I suspect if we had something in MB like a banner saying "there are open style votings, you can have your say" and a proper voting system, it'd get more people involved

does it make sense to write style documents when you can't even edit a book?

luks, you'll be able to as soon as we release again.

Interesting thought, reosarevok. Thanks for the feedback.

the thing that discogs did recently with all the new databases was definitely a great idea

Does a mailing list make sense to you?

it's just a fancy UI for editing and displaying JSON files

very quick to implement

Leftmost: I'd say no if you can get something proper in-site, but dunno. Generally, mailing lists are something *I* like as a user, but a lot of non-techy people do not

So it might restrict the amount of people who participate

(which is why I try to also have discussions in the forum when looking for opinions)

But I'm not too sure :)

luks: hmm. they seem to have done without any kind of artist entities for this?

Interesting

Not the way I'd do it at all, but interesting

(I mean, their "artist" entries seem to be a free text search kind of)

Yeah, I guess

I get the feeling that bookbrainz is focusing on many things, but not on being a book database

For books I'd definitely have gone the way of importing the Open Library data and letting people clean it up, since it's big and nice but just needs merging

luks, not on being a book database? What do you mean?

Leftmost: you "launched" the project without a way to describe a book

For something like movies where there's no good existing open data that I know of though, that makes more sense to me

for me, editing raw JSON files would and having a new UI for that would be a better start

luks, in what way? And what do you think we're focused on if not being a book database?

Leftmost: less focus on technology and more on books

you can build something like http://www.biblio.gs/ in a couple of days

I don't know what that means. My focus is on creating a book database, I assure you.

and once you have that, users can start adding books and give you feedback

while you have a number of code repositories, python project, nodejs project, etc. and still can't edit books

And we can store it all in a nice, pain-in-the-ass way that makes it more difficult to work with it in the future.

you are not going to get the model right on the first attempt

so you might as well use simpler and more flexible way to do things

No, and I don't plan on getting it right on the first attempt. JSON will just make it harder to change the model, though, as it puts the burden on us to update every file consistently when the model changes.

It's a moot point, though. In a week or so we'll release an update that allows editing, gathers more information, etc.

I mean, while I'd agree it shouldn't be announced widely without proper editing, arguably the official release was a soft release thing, so it probably doesn't matter much

BB development has happened in the open for quite some time and this is the first I've heard these plans, so closing the barn doors isn't going to help much.

I mean, AFAICT it hasn't really been announced much

So as long as the full announcement is made with all the basic stuff in place...

We didn't make any broad announcements because we wanted to get feedback from established MB community members who understood that it's in a beta state and have a general idea of what the future should look like.

I still think you should import OpenLibrary ;) But I saw you were planning to have some script for that, which I guess is also better than nothing

ok, I'm sorry

it just seems to me that the project is focusing on the wrong things and repeating some of MBs mistakes, but I'm not really helping

I guess I was frustrated with the project since the time it was a haskell experiment

I've had my frustrations as well, I just think that we're in a place where the best thing to do is move forward.

ok

luks, if there are specific issues that you think we should address, beyond the lack of editing since that's in place in the source repo, we're happy to hear them.