[mb-users] Feedback/testing: track merging

[Olivier]

> A "track" object contains a collection of "release track" objects. This would clear up a significant amount of redundant data and allow us to pool similar PUIDs into a single object such that there would be absolutely no PUID collisions between the objects.

Just wondering: if pweeds would remain attached to "release tracks",
splitting a track out of a group also would have the benefit to split
the pweeds out - while if all pweeds are attached to the master track,
this is somewhat irreversible.
Not too sure how much extra complexity handling this that way would
require, but I can sure see a benefit in it...

> Are EditTrackTimeEdits and EditTrackNameEdits linked to no releases or all attached releases, now that there can be more than one release?

Not too sure I correctly understand the question...
So far, all merged "release tracks" share the same title (and same
track time) and the corresponding edits alter all releases.

This is not ideal: EditTrackTimeEdits won't cope well with discids...
And for EditTrackNameEdits probably it causes problems as well
(trans-stuff as mentioned earlier).

I guess in the ideal world (apparently, part of this is planned, right?):
- each "release track" could have its title and time edited/set on its own:
 * with a "reminder" containing the current "master" information (if
there is more than one release track in the group)
 * with some warning about time variation (above a given threshold)
between the "master" and the "release track" (if there is more than
one release track in the group)
- the "master" also could have its title edited independently,
possibly with a check box or something like that to "also set 'release
tracks' titles"
- the "master" track time should not be editable, but be the median of
times of all attached tracks
- the merging dialog may present the ability to change the title/time
of the tracks once merging, or not

> How should removing of a track work? Automatic removing when the last "release track" is removed?

Automatic removing sounds ok I guess...

> How do you separate merged tracks?

UI-wise?
Maybe on the given track page, add a "split it out" button next to
each "release track"?


> When release tracks will have their own titles, and somebody completely changes the title, should it automatically create a new track?

I don't think so.
It's not uncommon to see the same recording have completely different
titles (also, as mentioned, trans-* stuff)

But maybe this is about the definition of track merging then...


> Should the "release editor" have an option to re-use existing tracks, instead of always creating new ones and then merging them?

I would say if such a possibility exist, it should be made (very)
discreet. Adding a release is already a quite rich/complicated task
for the complete newcomer, and there are already a good number of
mistakes to make. Making this new UI too obvious will make the process
more complicated, and more prone to generate tons of bogus merges.

I would even suggest to not add it at all, at least until we see how
all this goes.





About the comments down the page:

> Adding new album will always add new master entities.

Yes, I agree with that.

> Masters have no explicit titles, everything is derived from attached tracks.

That doesn't work quite well as soon as release tracks can have
different titles...

> It will be possible to merge masters

That's the case right now as far as I can tell?

> It will be possible to split some tracks of a master
> The release editor can be used only to edit tracks, not masters or track<->master associations.

Sounds reasonable

> Significant change to track title will automatically detach the track from the current master (if more than one track is attached to it)

How much "significant"? soundex? Levenshtein?
I don't think this is that much a good idea...

> There are no track ARs, adding an AR to track will transparently add it to the master.

Sounds good.

> PUIDs are attached to masters. (theoretically, no two masters should share the same PUID)

Yes, but see above. Maybe it's still a good idea to maintain pweeds
attached to release tracks instead, so that spliting them out will
split the pweeds as well.

> Durations are attached to masters, not tracks.

Not sure I like that...





And last, what will happen to track annotations?
IMO, they should be unique, attached (and merged) to the master track,
not the releases tracks (like ARs).




In the hope I understood all that enough to write meaningful comments :]

- Olivier