2007/12/5, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's not a philosophical point, but rather a logical point (begging
the question, to be exact)
Am referring to petitio principii, not to other (modern) usages of
begging the question.
Arrr, what about continuing this thread in French instead? :p
Propagating not as in copying, but as in displaying on later releases
of the same track/release. Editing can only be done at the original
point.
I'm frankly failing to see the problem. Yes, we have inconsistency in
some respects, but I don't see the urgency to fix it using some scheme
that would
2007/12/5, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is there a great urgency? Why not wait until there is a way to
propagate AR:s to later releases of the same release/track instead of
rushing ahead? Apart from the nice feeling of having complete tags
with composer and all, does anyone actually
2007/12/5, Brian Schweitzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Having consistent data accross a subset of the database (see the
examples above).
While I understand your reasoning here, until we do have a way to carry
forward ARs in practice, and not in theory, so long as the ARs are not
incorrect, I
On Dec 5, 2007 12:11 PM, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think the right way to handle this is demise, then well, what
can I say? :-)
Demise is one thing, denying there is a problem (even if I'm the only
poor soul fighting with it) is another.
Nobody in this thread said there is no
On 12/5/07, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1- currently, both ways of documenting ARs are tolerated: editors who
want to document exhaustive AR (even when entities are linked to an
earlier one with already all the data) are allowed to do so, and
editors who prefer to document only the
2007/12/5, Bram van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, as I see it:
both your solutions (remove AR's from later releases; add AR's to later
releases) require lots of editing effort,
No.
Only the later requires such efforts.
The former *lights-up* editing efforts, as it makes maintenance and
adding
2007/12/5, Philipp Wolfer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Dec 5, 2007 12:11 PM, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think the right way to handle this is demise, then well, what
can I say? :-)
Demise is one thing, denying there is a problem (even if I'm the only
poor soul fighting with it) is
2007/12/5, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I do quite a bit of AR editing,
Certainly.
and simply link to the first release
of the track if it is a re-release. This takes a lot less time than
adding new AR:s.
Definitely the right thing to do.
I don't think this is maintenance hell but
Here's still something I don't get: the most repeated argument I get
is Track Masters will come soon, so your problems will go away,
meanwhile you have to wait
But when I suggest something that actually ease the situation quite a
bit (though it obviously has the drawback you mentioned), I'm
2007/12/5, Philip Jägenstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Propagating not as in copying, but as in displaying on later releases
of the same track/release. Editing can only be done at the original
point.
I'm frankly failing to see the problem. Yes, we have inconsistency in
some respects, but I don't
Well, as I see it:
both your solutions (remove AR's from later releases; add AR's to later
releases) require lots of editing effort, and since there will (some
day) be a technical solution to these issues, the concensus seems to be
that this effort can be used in more productive ways.
Bram
12 matches
Mail list logo
