z.org
[mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of
Calvin Walton
Sent: 01 June 2011 18:01
To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
Subject: [mb-style] RFV: Extend Official Homepage Relationship Type
toReleases
Hi everyone, This is the RFV for my earlier proposal,
http://lists.musicbrain
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 18:11 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
> hi
>
> Why not add this at release group level? I notice that's where the URL
> relationships (eg link to a review) seem to sit now...or do we think all
> those relationships should be at release level?
The reasoning for this was that for the
lf Of
Calvin Walton
Sent: 01 June 2011 18:15
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: Extend Official Homepage Relationship Type
toReleases
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 18:11 +0100, Pete Marsh wrote:
> hi
>
> Why not add this at release group level? I notice that&#
On 06/01/2011 07:19 PM, Pete Marsh wrote:
> i think that's sound and probably applies to reviews links too. how do
> people feel about the reviews relationship going to release level too?
In a general way, I'm opposed to have the same relationship defined at
both release and release-group level.
B
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 22:13 +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 07:19 PM, Pete Marsh wrote:
> > i think that's sound and probably applies to reviews links too. how do
> > people feel about the reviews relationship going to release level too?
> In a general way, I'm opposed to have the same
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 pe
On 06/03/2011 02:43 PM, Nikki wrote:
> 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 be
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 20:07 +0200, Aurélien Mino wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 02:43 PM, Nikki wrote:
> > 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
