Since this RFV generated more discussion, I'm guessing the proposal wasn't ready for RFV yet and should revert back to an RFC.
Aurélien Mino wrote: > In a general way, I'm opposed to have the same relationship defined at > both release and release-group level. > Because this will only confuse people, and you'll end up with the > relationships sometimes defined at a level, sometimes on another, > and sometimes at both. This was one of my concerns too. > I think this relationship type you be defined at release-group level > only, and this I'm considering vetoing this proposal. > I've not seen a good reason why release-group level doesn't qualify. As Calvin asked, are you OK with the discography page one being release-level? Nikki _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
