Album Year vs. Track Year

[Stuart Neill]

On Friday 27 Mar 2009 16:23:50 Ian Monroe wrote:
>
> The schema is more or less the same as Amarok 1.4, we did just a bit
> of normalizing.  I don't know where you read that (heard of replying
> to email?) but we still have a Year table and there's no assumption
> that albums have the same year for the very obvious reason you list.

I am glad to hear this. I clearly misunderstood the following paragraph posted 
by Caleb Cushing 26 Mar 2009.

"an example is the years table. what happens when I change the year
2008, to 1994? all the tracks listed as 2008 show as 1994? this table
should be dropped and the year column should be moved to the tracks
column. If we could rely on user data being reliable and consistent,
it would be even better in the albums table, unfortunately we can't
rely on users to actually have both album/year populated consistently."

This together with places in the Amarok 2 user interface where the developer 
has clearly made the assumption that individual tracks will not vary in date 
across an album led to a late-night knee jerk reaction. I trust one of Amaroks 
whizz-bang developers will bring Amarok 2 up to the standard of Amarok 1 in 
this regard in the fullness of time. Sorry for the noise.

As for not replying to the e-mail (I have heard of such things). The reason I 
did not is that I did not wish to appear to hijack a thread by moving the 
emphasis away from someones GSOC proposal (especially as the debate showed 
signs of becoming heated). "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" :-) 

-- 
Stuart Neill