CatQuest: sorry, I saw your message last week about adding languages, didn't have time to do it yet, probably over the week-end
same for reosarevok 's suggestion for improve relationships cloning on a group of track, that's written but I need to test it a bit more
reosarevok
<3
xsteadfastx has quit
alexrelis has quit
xsteadfastx joined the channel
zer0bitz has quit
zer0bitz joined the channel
xsteadfastx has quit
zer0bitz_ joined the channel
zer0bitz has quit
MRiddickW joined the channel
Clint_ is now known as Clint
CatQuest
loujine: no worries, take all the time you need :)
atj
nice updates to the cover art script ROpdebee
reosarevok: I recall you were talking about changing the annotation column the other day. Would that change fix the issue where when you delete an annotation it says "Add release annotation", doesn't display the previous version and says "This annotation is empty.".
reosarevok
Not directly at least
Do you mean the edit or?
Annotations are always done as "add", whether you delete or edit or add, rn
Which is a bit weird, admittedly
atj
reosarevok: well, I'm editing a releasing and deleting the entire disambiguation.
s/releasing/release
it would be nice to show the previous version of the annotation in the edit summary
reosarevok
Yeah, I can see that. I don't remember why we don't do it - bitmap, do you?
bitmap
I guess 'cause like you said, annotations are always "add" edits, so we don't have any display code for an "edit annotation" edit type
you mean the "add" display should show the previous version if one exists? that could work
ainola joined the channel
atj
yeah that would fix the main issue.
bitmap
we'd just have to keep track of which version of the annotation the user has loaded/is editing, and store that in the edit
reosarevok
At least a *link* to it probably wouldn't hurt
atj
I assume annotations are treated differently because they are TEXT fields (or something)?
bitmap
otherwise it may differ from the version when the edit is submitted or applied
reosarevok
But we could just store the whole thing
(the revisions are stored in history, so it should be trivial to just store the ID either way)
atj: I honestly dunno why this was implemented like this - I guess because it's meant to be a bit like a wiki it wasn't really thought of as a "proper field" with diffs and stuff?