[mb-style] Re: AR implicit/explicit propagation: to

[Olivier]

2007/12/5, Philip Jägenstedt <philip at foolip.org>:
> 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 rather
> what requires the least editing of all the options that have been
> presented.

Obviously yes.
The problems come when *later* tracks that are linked to this earliest
*already* have *some* ARs set.

> Granted, I sometimes resort to adding earlier releases so
> that I actually HAVE the first version to link to, but this is good
> for the database.

Again, I definitely agree. Adding early releases constitutes most of
my own adds.

> I wouldn't really object to someone using the
> earliest version in the database if they can't be bothered though...
>

I probably would, but that's another topic.

> I don't know what parts of the database you're editing

That depends heavily on the season, the food I've been eating, the
state of my love affairs, etc.
Though, I'm supposed to be jailed in the jazz part of it (which almost
nobody ever enters), for being too much of a disturbance if I go in
zones where there are actually other people :]

> or what kind of
> AR:s you're adding, but I haven't experienced the big demise of the
> current situation in my editing.
>

Given the kind of stuff I'm editing these days (prior 1940), mostly
performers, composers, and whenever the info exists, producers and
engineers (not speaking about ARs Labels which are an entirely
different beast).

> I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just questioning if it is
> really urgent enough to warrant any of the suggested solutions.

Well... haven't we gone around the whole topic two or three times? ;)
Your opinion is certainly fair, just like the opinion of all the other
fine people who took part in this.

Now, to be quite frank, I don't see this discussion going nowhere and
it's getting somewhat boring/tiring/not worth the effort.So, I guess
I'll be managing the problem as I can, until the famous Track Masters
save the day.


Now, for the record, and to end-up this thread, may I provide a quick
summary for future reference? (and also to have some fun about all
this :D)

Obviously, it's slightly biased, and the slightly disrespectful :-)
"quotes" are not necessarily word by word, though the authors will
definitely identify themselves.

I hope everybody can taste the fun in it - it's not meant to be harsh,
definitely

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 earliest one obviously can't
be forced to propagate
2- THOUGH, the later kind of editors are not allowed to remove
(partial) ARs from later releases (even if they added it themselves in
the first place), based on the argument that, errr, "why would they?"
and, errr, well, errrr "it's bad!" and errr, well, "data will be in
good shape anyway at some point in the future so why would we want
data to be in good shape now, hey?"
3- either way are strictly equivalent from a "future" point of vue,
and the introduction of masters will result in the same dataset
4- there is absolutely no problem in having bad-shaped data right now
(that's MB, right? We suck, but we are discussing right now how we
will be rocking in 200 years!)
5- doing otherwise (eg: removing the later ARs) "will generate tons of
edits that will clutter the open queue"
6- "all this anyhow concerns only 0.0001% of the tracks, so given the
so little quantity of ARs affected, why would we even bother/need to
discuss all this?" (same author as 5-! who deserves an Award for
supporting the two statements :D)
7- the additional work/pain in editing generated by this situation is
clearly out-weighted by the SSSP (that's the MB "Super Sacro Saint
Principle" - here manifested in a variant of "this information is not
essentially wrong"), principle which has to be obeyed at all costs
including extra work for editors, increased maintenance difficulties
and bad-shaped information
8- solving practical problems is not really interesting, because it's
too complicated and there is no simple answer. On the other hand, it's
much better and easier to just speak about the SSSP, as the only
question asked is "Do you believe in the SSSP?" and the only answer is
"Yes" (if it's "No", then you're a bad MB person! and you get stoned
by the others "good" MB persons)
9- REMOVING IS BAAAAAD!!! NEVER EVER REMOVE ANYTHING!!! :D




In the sincere hope everyone can take a good laugh about all this ;)
(and not throw stones at me).


Regards

- Olivier