[mb-style] [no label]

[Philipp Wolfer]

On Jan 3, 2008 9:55 AM, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be quite handy in fact in a lot of cases.  Those three plus
> [unknown] and the abovementioned [none] and [white label] would cover
> a lot of ground, and are pretty easy to distinguish.

I think that would be very valuable. Currently there is only the
possibility to leave the label blank, which can mean all of the above.
It is really helpfull to distingiush those cases.

I just wondered if we need [unknown] then, as we could simply leave
the label blank instead. That would make it clear that whenever a
label like [white label] is entered somebody already looked researched
the release, but whenever the label is clear we have indeed missing
information.

On the other side a label [unknown] could give an overview over
releases that need label research.


-- 
Philipp Wolfer