PDA

View Full Version : RE: New Music date ordering



Chris Brooking
2005-04-07, 01:15
Phil wrote:

It would seem to be a good idea for the "New Music" facility to
be driven by the creation date, not modification date. I'm not
really interested if some tags get amended; the music is the same.
Alternatively, perhaps a new config item could be added to the
Behaviour settings, to select which timestamp to use for determining
the "New Music" list.

Do you consider this a bug, or an enhancement request?

Phil

I second this as an excellent idea. It's a little annoying to have
something pop to the top of 'new music' when I edit a tag.

Chris

Marc Sherman
2005-04-07, 05:02
Phil wrote:
>
> It would seem to be a good idea for the "New Music" facility to
> be driven by the creation date, not modification date. I'm not
> really interested if some tags get amended; the music is the same.
> Alternatively, perhaps a new config item could be added to the
> Behaviour settings, to select which timestamp to use for determining
> the "New Music" list.
>
> Do you consider this a bug, or an enhancement request?

Either way, it belongs in Bugzilla. They can change the bug/freq tag
after it's filed, if you get it wrong.

- Marc

Marc Sherman
2005-04-07, 05:02
Phil wrote:
>
> It would seem to be a good idea for the "New Music" facility to
> be driven by the creation date, not modification date. I'm not
> really interested if some tags get amended; the music is the same.
> Alternatively, perhaps a new config item could be added to the
> Behaviour settings, to select which timestamp to use for determining
> the "New Music" list.
>
> Do you consider this a bug, or an enhancement request?

Either way, it belongs in Bugzilla. They can change the bug/freq tag
after it's filed, if you get it wrong.

- Marc

Philip Meyer
2005-04-07, 11:29
>Either way, it belongs in Bugzilla. They can change the bug/freq tag
>after it's filed, if you get it wrong.
>
Enhancement request #1332 raised.

Phil

Philip Meyer
2005-04-07, 15:42
>Enhancement request #1332 raised.
>
Hmm, someone raised the enhancement before I did (#1330). I've had a couple like this recently where I have searched but not found anything so raised a bug, only for it to be set as a duplicate.

It's interesting though, in that I did a search for "new music" before I added the enhancement, and #1330 was not reported. Looking at the timestamps on the creation of #1330 and #1332, my bug was raised a whole 2.5 hours after #1330. Does it take new bug reports a while to filter through the system before they are searchable, or am I searching incorrectly?

Phil

Marc Sherman
2005-04-08, 04:06
Philip Meyer wrote:
>
> Hmm, someone raised the enhancement before I did (#1330). I've had a
> couple like this recently where I have searched but not found
> anything so raised a bug, only for it to be set as a duplicate.
>
> It's interesting though, in that I did a search for "new music"
> before I added the enhancement, and #1330 was not reported. Looking
> at the timestamps on the creation of #1330 and #1332, my bug was
> raised a whole 2.5 hours after #1330. Does it take new bug reports a
> while to filter through the system before they are searchable, or am
> I searching incorrectly?

It's possible that it takes longer for indexes to get rebuilt, so newly
filed bugs won't show up in searches immediately.

But in general, don't worry so much about filing duplicates. It's
always much easier to close a dupe than it is to fix a bug that you've
missed because it wasn't filed.

- Marc