On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:33:04 +0100, wrote:
Ok, I must have missed that. But why should we test an instrument on the
test server, I did not know that an additional instrument needs a
thourough testing period. Let's add it and be through with it.
No not a single Instrument, but I think that Mo's wholly new instrment
tree does need testing. For example it might need some "other" leaves, but
this is difficult to tell in theory.
And finally I am growing tired of all these debates about what should be
and what should not be. Testing coud help us all to move the focus onto
the question whether a solution is *vaible*, whether it works.
The part of this discussion which is so annoying is a debate about "design
principles". Would it help to say: Robert is the maintainer and elder. He
makes the decisions about the design principles? In this case: Should all
used instruments be added to the instrument tree, or should only the most
important ones be there?
Or is there a way we here can achieve consensus about these "design
principles" without a dictator? I fear there is not. In the past people
have stuck to their personal view how things should be. Then we have two
opposing parties regarding principles and any attempt of getting things
done is stuck in between.
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation
around! :-)
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
