Re: [mb-users] Sorting sub-works and more generally ARs

On Oct 24, 2013 4:48 AM, "David Gasaway" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>> Interesting, I hadn't thought of that: in a Recording-Work AR, the
"parent" is the Recording. But that doesn't change anything IMO, simple
numbering would still work.
>
>
> I'd like to point out that it works only in one direction.  When looking
at the work, the numbers would be meaningless, and sorting by these numbers
wouldn't make sense.

That's right,  but that's okay.

> I also assume that you mean that the number would apply only within that
specific AR.

That's my assumption too,  but I would assume we wouldn't allow ordering in
most cases. In those we would allow it, the ordering would be regardless of
attributes I would think.

>  Let's take a specific example:
>
> Recording A
> - Produced by X, Y
> - Assistant produced by Z
>
> These are all the very same AR type, but the last has an additional
attribute applied.  We might want to sort X and Y.  But would we also need
to sort Z with them?  After all, the UI keeps them separate.

What the UI currently does isn't very important. The release UI shows
credits inline (sorted by track) or per join string.

PS meant to say to davitof 1.1.1 doesn't need to be (shouldn't be ) a
string, just not an integer.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users