LL> It's been more than a week since the RFC and to my surprise there has LL> been only one negative feedback, which I don't think is justifiable, LL> because it ignores the basic problems that motivated me to propose LL> these changes, which I mentioned in the initial email. All MB editors LL> I know, except for jesus2099, agree with these changes. So, LL> considering the +1s I got on the ML, here is the RFV.
-1 VETO ← WCBI. ☞ Please tell me what were your « basic problems » that I « ignored » . The gmane links given give me a big text I thought I answered but please extract the points that I did not. Here I recall my basic problems : I’m against this merge that appears to make us loosing titles as they are on φ releases and we’ll end up with altered titles (inserting foreign abbreviations like “feat.” in our titles, Using Funny Caps etc.) which is bad when we know a title is being *consistently* in a certain different way that is not matching some people’s personal preferences. We are also setting informative text in recordings that will have now to go down to tracklists and that’s a real pity IMO : “がいながてや (live, 2009-12-29: Tōkyō JCB Hall, Japan)” ← we don’t want to alter the tracklist this way, it’s totally different from φ release. This is why I VETO this RFV-333, maybe I didn’t understand anything when I’m flooded with tons of emails though. ☞ Please tell me what were your « basic problems » that I « ignored » . ----- jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7 mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099 mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-333-Unify-track-recording-guidelines-tp3722980p3726960.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
