BJW wrote:
> I know, I wrote it. :)
>
> What I am saying, is absent any comp tags, server will always decide
> something isn't a comp simply bc it also has albumartists tags. This is
> just one example of erroneous assumptions the software makes at a
> foundational level. Something isn't
I know, I wrote it. :)
What I am saying, is absent any comp tags, server will always decide
something isn't a comp simply bc it also has albumartists tags. This is
just one example of erroneous assumptions the software makes at a
foundational level. Something isn't necessarily not a comp just
garym wrote:
> The only possibility I'm aware of is one case: If one does NOT have
> ALBUM ARTIST filled in *and* there is at least one track on the album
> that has a differing artist or artists, LMS will treat that album as a
> compilation album (even though there is no COMPILATION tag).
dolodobendan wrote:
> I do not see this behavior on my system. Maybe you should check your
> tags and settings.
The only possibility I'm aware of is one case: If one does NOT have
ALBUM ARTIST filled in *and* there is at least one track on the album
that has a differing artist or artists, LMS
BJW wrote:
> The mere presence of an albumartist tag shouldn't mean something is a
> comp or not
I do not see this behavior on my system. Maybe you should check your
tags and settings.
QLMS 7.9.1@1.07.2 (digimaster) / QNAP 469L QTS 4.3.4
BJW wrote:
> I think users can make constructive criticism without being attacked by
> German dogs, ha.
contructive critic is always welcome.
btw:
BJW wrote:
> making scans and queries faster and more reliable.
82.458 Tracks are scanned in 112 minutes - that means each track is
scanned in
BJW wrote:
> So much of what is whacky in server is bc of legacy thinking, instead of
> a fresh, common sense approach that would be much more intuitive and
> also make more sense under the hood of server, making scans and queries
> faster and more reliable.
> grep "18-02-23"
