On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Peter Verswyvelen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
beginner sounds so humble...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@haskell.org (for the experts)
*chuckle*
Sorry, I just had to reply.
-w
___
Haskell
Mos' def.
Chad / voice
Lauri Watts wrote:
Proposal:
Change the wording
From: Use a colon (:) to separate multi-line parts of a ReleaseTitle.
to: Use a colon (:) to separate parts of a ReleaseTitle
Where:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SubTitleStyle
Why:
1) It unnecessarily restricts
BrianG has voted down an edit to remove a homeburnt disc ID at
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=8668756
Since when has this practice changed, and is BrianG's position that the
practice should change technically defensible? (of course AutoEditors
voting against style guidelines isn't,
Mika Heiska wrote:
Chad Wilson wrote:
Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen wrote:
Bogdan Butnaru skrev:
Who do I have to bug to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taragot
added to the instrument list? I'd like to enter some traditional
Romanian music and this is very important
Frederik 'Freso' S. Olesen wrote:
Bogdan Butnaru skrev:
Who do I have to bug to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taragot
added to the instrument list? I'd like to enter some traditional
Romanian music and this is very important for several discs.
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:22 AM, symphonick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/4/3, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What you want seems more like a legal name field, which we don't have.
Tracked at http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3619 I copy and paste the
text from there for discussion (apologies if instrument requests don't
require RFC, but thought it may be useful for discussion anyway and
other instrument requests seem stuck in no man's land).
See
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Summary:
Proposal: Add pre-NGS works lists, change the intent of CSG, modify
the version of AR into an 'instance of' AR, and change the
suggested target point for the cover of, parody of, version of,
and composition-related ARs.
Developer impact: According to
I agree with the content as read currently, but is it possible to make
it less conversational in tone, and thus consistent with most of the
rest of the wiki?
I find that wiki pages that are conversational in tone are easily
dismissed as discussion type pages (which alas our wiki is littered
Olivier wrote:
Ok...
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease?action=diffrev2=23rev1=22
Chad, Lauri, tell me if you feel this is better that way.
Looks pretty good, although with the summary section added, perhaps you
can do without the TOC (space saving etc). I'm not too
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Having read http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/StylePrinciple I thought the
Reasoning section was pretty poorly phrased.
Current:
There are enough cases of record companies mucking up track listings
or even artist names (see some of the Front Line Assembly releases
Olivier wrote:
Also worth mentioning: please don't abuse the company side of the labels.
Mostly, we are tracking imprints (as stated in the doc, we don't plan
on being a financial database tracking companies life, and only store
such information when it makes sense from a musical point of vue).
Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
We may then discover that we really ''don't'' have consensus on how a Type 1
AR behaves.
That is the problem I'm referring to; we probably /don't/ have
consensus. I don't think you'll ever get that about any interesting
style issue around here; everyone has their
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
I may be deluded, but I do think there was something similar to the
consensus to apply AR:s to the track level when we know it to be true
of each track. What release level AR:s means still isn't very clear to
me, even if I have a firm opinion on what it ought to mean
Philipp Wolfer wrote:
On Jan 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That would be quite handy in fact in a lot of cases. Those three plus
[unknown] and the abovementioned [none] and [white label] would cover
a lot of ground, and are pretty easy to distinguish.
I think
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
My sense of what's been said, and some thoughts on how maybe we can
move forward:
We would like all ARs to be meaningful.
We would like everyone to agree on just what any given AR level implies.
We would love if all release level ARs applied only to all tracks, but
we
Olivier wrote:
I would like to drive the list attention to:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/label/?labelid=3267
Comments?
Should we make this official (eg: documented)?
Preference for the name?
Ideas to prevent people from using it as a lazy fallback when they
Is the main thing we gain from
Barry Platt wrote:
Following the recent server upgrade, it is very easy to add such ARs to
multiple tracks on a release in a single operation. So now an editor is
faced with two possibilities when adding ARs to a release - assign to
the release level, or assign to tracks. My understanding is
Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Wikipedia is the world biggest open encyclopepia, wiki is a technoogy to
build web sites. There is no need to make distinction between PHP fan
websites with custom CMS, Drupal-based fansites, wiki fansites, etc.
Lukas
Agreed; official and fan page are the correct ways
Kuno Woudt wrote:
I'm not entirely certain about the order of (feat.) and (disc #), but
can't think of any examples right now to which the style would apply.
(so i wouldn't veto an RFV to make this ReleaseTitle as it currently
exists official). I guess I would prefer the guideline to be
Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Hi!
voiceinsideyou asked for input on
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7696392, but I want to raise
the issue to this list.
The issue in short: the collaboration style guide requires and Artist
A, Artist B Artist C format which is very unnatural for Han
Status: Unconfirmed = Rejected
--
Ubuntu 6.10 installation crash
https://launchpad.net/bugs/69937
--
Chad Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mysite.verizon.net/interkingdom/
Power. Prowess. Presence.
--
Ubuntu 6.10 installation crash
https://launchpad.net/bugs/69937
--
ubuntu-bugs
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS-2095?page=comments#action_12363361 ]
Chad Wilson commented on AXIS-2095:
---
I can confirm that Anil's fix resolves this issue in Axis 1.3 for
Document/Wrapped. This issue has caused a number of other currently
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS-1642?page=comments#action_12355682 ]
Chad Wilson commented on AXIS-1642:
---
Hmm, revisiting, ignore my last comment - it is incorrect. However, the issue
is still prevalent in Axis 1.3 (i.e
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS-1642?page=comments#action_12314126 ]
Chad Wilson commented on AXIS-1642:
---
In particular this is a problem in the LogHandler that is distributed with Axis
itself - in both Axis 1.2 and 1.2.1.
LogHandler's
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AXIS-1642?page=comments#action_12314127 ]
Chad Wilson commented on AXIS-1642:
---
Oh - and on a related note - I notice that regardless of whether you are using
LogHandler or any kind of custom onFault() handling
Hello guys I am a CVS newb and I've been selected to admin a CVS box. I'm
working on reinstalling the box and I was wondering what the easiest way of
backing up the repository on one machine and restoring to another is. Any
help would be appreciated! Thanks
Chad Wilson
401 - 427 of 427 matches
Mail list logo
