On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:56, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote:
Couple problems. Many boxsets have discs of new/unreleased content. These
discs necessarily need to have boxset naming, and need to be linked to.
Linking Johnny's Boxset Beats (disc 5: The Returnening) as the next disc
for Johnny Sings
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:24:50 +0200, Andrew Conkling
andrew.conkl...@gmail.com wrote:
I had an idea regarding BoxSetNameStyle, in the case where box sets'
releases are also available individually.
An example:
http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/40ed05d3-8239-3d1a-a90a-543773898117.html
On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:08, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
+1. I recently encountered this situation with the Brilliant box set of
the complete works of Brahms. In some cases we have two releases
associated with the same disc ID, with exactly the same track content,
to accommodate different titles. This
On 21/06/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
define 'people' :P i don't want to see my albums change name depending
on what particular package i got them in. i want the album field of my
what did we say about just yesterday bout the i don't want this in my
tags arguments? you put
define 'people' :P i don't want to see my albums change name depending
on what particular package i got them in. i want the album field of my
what did we say about just yesterday bout the i don't want this in my
tags arguments? you put your opinion above all others, and are
continually working
Hi,
Nothing is planned yet. But there is a bunch of documentation in
ObjectModel, AlbumRework, ReleaseGrouping etc. to take in account, if
someone wants to edit those documents and consolidate them, that would be a
good start. I'm currently busy cleaning up the mb_server codebase, to make
it
In the meantime, a similar thread was started on mb-users... I suggest
moving the discussion there:
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2006-April/023650.h
tml
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Will UPC codes be a part of that as well?
Cristov (wolfsong)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'MusicBrainz style discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: RE: [mb-style] BoxSetNameStyle
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:22:46 +0200
You can start thinking about things if we had
Is there sufficient documentation what should go into the new feature and
what not on the wiki? If you and others could dream up a development-ready
data-model and where to put each entity, I'll do it.
Will UPC codes be a part of that as well?
___
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no guidelines
(either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have come of it, and the
problem is still as it was before.
i still maintain my position that we currently index by tracklist, not
product. until label/cat# support appears, i don't
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no
guidelines (either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have
come of it, and the problem is still as it was before.
I actually don't see it as a problem. Having the duplicates in the database
until we can change the schema of the
On 09/04/06, Cristov Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are we getting anywhere with this one? as far as i know no
guidelines (either new or amendments to BoxSetNameStyle) have
come of it, and the problem is still as it was before.
I actually don't see it as a problem. Having the duplicates
You can start thinking about things if we had label, catno support, because
that's the next thing I hope we'll add to the server. Currently we are
cleaning up the code, and after that, we'll implement the things that were
on the plate for quite some time (artistpageredesign, label/catno,
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:38:57 +0100, Jan van Thiel wrote:
On 3/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Enter every
release as a different entry in the database
[...]
I fully agree with Stefan here.
And I very strongly disagree. The current db schema has the Album to store
And I very strongly disagree. The current db schema has the
Album to store
the tracklisting and the release to store different releases
of that same
audio material.
It's not about the audio material! Have you paid attention to the discussion
about the NiN Album, and why we are
On 3/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DonRedman wrote:
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:38:57 +0100, Jan van Thiel wrote:
On 3/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enter every
release as a different entry in the database
I fully agree with Stefan here.
And I very
Looks like this reply got stuck because of the attachment. Resending this
without it, you can find it here
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DonRedman?action=AttachFiledo=viewtarget=NIN-Debate-Graph.png.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 14:08:19 +0100, G0llum wrote:
this into a factual 1:1 relationship (via
Hi Chris,
what do we do? perhaps the fact that it was available seperately at
any stage, implies that it's a seperate entity. i think this scenario
might be a bit rare to include in the guidelines, though.
Yes, for all the examples you have listed, and even more: Enter every
release as a
I agree, and I'm glad you want to go all the way rather than some of
the way, which i don't think helps. it's either one or the other for
me.
i don't think there is a way of doing this without duplication - even
if we could assign multiple 'releases' to one track list (as i seem to
recall
On 3/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Enter every
release as a different entry in the database
[...]
I fully agree with Stefan here.
--
Jan van Thiel
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
20 matches
Mail list logo
