2007/12/3, Philipp Wolfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Dec 3, 2007 10:50 AM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does that means you support Plan A. > > If so, can you detail how to address its issues? > > I would curently prefer to treat every release separately and keep the > ARs redundant. For the future I see two possible solutions for the > redundancy problems: > > 1. Track masters: As soon as the same track is really the same entity > on different releases there is no need anymore to worry about the > redundancy as all ARs have to be added only once.* > 2. Some automatic AR propagation as described on > http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3029 > > Both solutions will keep the ARs available for every release and not > only for the earliest release as it would be the case with Plan B. As > long as we don't have the technical solutions I see no problem in > keeping the ARs redundant. And I especially see no use in removing > valid ARs! > > * If this get's implemented same ARs on previously different tracks > will be merged. I think that's what Brian Schweitzer meant with "go > away eventually" > > -- > Philipp Wolfer >
I think this discussion to some extent drifted from its original topic, or that I haven't formulated my question as I should have. Say I'm onto working on a specific artist *exhaustively* (as much as I can), planning to move everything I can to HighQuality, and setting every needed data, MB-style. What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to: - (old plan A) manually propagate all ARs I set on the "earliest" to their children I think no one in the thread suggested that - and as I pointed out, this IMHO is absolutely impracticable - (old plan B) remove (eventually incomplete) in-children ARs when I link to an "earlier" that has all the proper credits - "the third way": if I understood well it means essentially I can't set HQ and I have to leave what's in place -> some children with complete ARs, some others with partial/incomplete ARs, and some without So that third way means I'm left with a half-done job, half-backed releases, no data consistency - which will probably disastisfy everybody (specially me :-)). Arguments about the future and how track masters will get in definitely are interesting, but we still have *present* issues to sort out, including the fact both practices (A & B) are currently done in the database <- which I really think is bad, and which means: you have one chance out of two of being voted yes/no depending on who votes on your edits. So... What should I do in the case I described? And why would the "third way" be better when it seems to combine the defects of both A & B without having any merit (or did I missed them?) Regards - Olivier _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
