[mb-style] RFC: Works lists (and other related changes then implied)

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> On 11/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:19 AM, David K. Gasaway <dave at gasaway.org> wrote:
>  >  > On 6 Mar 2008 at 0:27, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>  >  >
>  >  >  > But
>  >  >  > what I think you're talking about I also addressed:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > "Now, so I'm not misunderstood, if we're dealing with a song like, say,
>  >  >  > In the Pines / Where Did You Sleep Last Night, where the song has
>  >  >  > evolved with every other artist who has recorded it, then yes, that
>  >  >  > quite likely ought to appear in many works lists, each of the two
>  >  >  > branches of development of that song linking together back through
>  >  >  > time."
>  >  >
>  >  >  Exactly.  The song could appear in multiple work lists.  I was simply
>  >  >  pointing out that if you *didn't* want a song in multiple work lists
>  >  >  (to avoid the duplication and branching - I don't recall off-hand who
>  >  >  expressed a concern about this), then there are the other two options I
>  >  >  listed.
>  >
>  >
>  > Sounds good.  :)
>  >
>  >  So we can get finished with this, and get back to the real classical
>  >  discussion, is there anyone who'd yet object to an RFV for works lists
>  >  (just so that concept has at least had one) and an RFV for the changes
>  >  / additions from this RFC?
>
>  is an RFV really appropriate at this point? I mean,  I wouldn't veto,
>  but it seems like all of this is still up in the air until the
>  functionality is here for us to play with :) what we're really
>  agreeing with here is a requirements document for worklists, rather
>  than a guidelines change.
>
>  likewise, a worklist-centric CSG couldn't be RFV'd as it wouldn't
>  supersede the existing guidelines until such time as worklists were
>  here, right?

Well, luks expressed a week ago that he thought works lists could be
coded and pulled off within 1 to 2 weeks.  It's going to take a week
or so for us to pass any RFV to even have work lists, to have the
initial ARs to then make use to work lists, and somehow, for
classical, I think it's going to take us longer to finish up the
work-list-centric CSG than it'll take to code work lists.  Imho, all
that leads to no reason to wait until they're actually in place for us
to decide the various structures we'll need to actually make use of
them anyhow.  :)

Brian