Additional Tagging & Reporting Tools

[boroda]

yes, phred, please.

[phred]

yes, phred, please.

Done.   

[boroda]

phred, please compare timings of baseline backup and 2 subsequent incremental backups of 11-13-5 version and these 2 versions for your library (for inc. backups the number of changed tracks should be large enough (~500-1000), i want to choose more fast version:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mujcqei9936qmpf/mb_TagTools_2016-11-14-1.zip

http://www.mediafire.com/file/uej6c5a5fv7yqry/mb_TagTools_2016-11-14-2.zip

[phred]

phred, please compare timings of baseline backup and 2 subsequent incremental backups of 11-13-5 version and these 2 versions for your library (for inc. backups the number of changed tracks should be large enough (~500-1000), i want to choose more fast version:

Happy to help out, boroda74. I should have some info for you around the middle of the week.

[redwing]

Why was the Plugin Discussion thread merged into this? And why didn't you ask my opinion before merging this?

What's the hurry? Did I violate any forum rules? Or my opinion doesn't matter?

I am really upset about this.

[phred]

Nobody violated any rules. I sent you a PM right after it was merged so you'd be aware of it.

The 'discussion' thread had boroda74 fielding and posting Add'l Tagging & Reporting plugin questions/updates in two places. I asked him if he thought it was a good idea to merge and he agreed. It made sense to me and it made sense to him.

[redwing]

It makes no sense to me as the topic starter, but it doesn't matter to you, does it? Otherwise, you must have asked me too about it.

Also, why did he start posting on the two threads? That's because you posted your responses in the both threads. You're the only one who followed this feature on the other thread. And now you think this topic has no reason to stand alone and merge with the other without asking me?

The Plugin Discussion topic had the proposals of two plugins and the discussion about the other one didn't even start. Also now I have to go through more than 80 pages of the merged thread to find out previous discussion of these features.

[boroda]

redwing, i've agreed with phred without asking you first just because didn't consider merging threads very important question. but if you don't think so maybe its not too difficult and too late to separate thread back?

[boroda]

phred, forgot to mention: of course you can recopy only 1 file from 3 zip's - mb_TagTools.dll, no need to extract all files from zip.

[phred]

The Plugin Discussion topic had the proposals of two plugins and the discussion about the other one didn't even start. Also now I have to go through more than 80 pages of the merged thread to find out previous discussion of these features.

If the the discussion of the other proposal hasn't even started, then it's simply a matter of copying and pasting it into a new thread. It took me about three minutes to find your initial post on page 72 http://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=3833.msg111090#msg111090

Again - the reason for the merge was that 99% of the posts were dealt with an enhancement to the ATRT plugin. I posted my questions and bugs in the ATRT thread because that's where the discussion should've been to being with.

[phred]

phred, forgot to mention: of course you can recopy only 1 file from 3 zip's - mb_TagTools.dll, no need to extract all files from zip.

No problem. That's what I've been doing.

[redwing]

I posted my questions and bugs in the ATRT thread because that's where the discussion should've been to being with.

That statement tells me a lot about your mentality and now I can kind of see why you didn't (and probably will not) care my opinion before your action. So you don't care where actual discussion has been going on because you think you know the right place. And you don't care why it started from a new thread to begin with (when the discussion started it wasn't decided whether it would be a new plugin or part of the existing plugin). And you don't care the inconveniences the merge of threads could cause upon me because you think you did a right action. Now I feel like I must thank you for not having merged the wrong topic until yesterday with your great patience.

[phred]

Now I feel like I must thank you for not having merged the wrong topic until yesterday with your great patience.

You yourself admitted that you proposed -two- suggestions in your initial post and that the other suggestion hadn't even started being discussed. That being the case, just start a new thread, as I suggested earlier, by copying the other suggestion into the new initial post. But rather than doing that simple task, you'd rather rant about my "mentality" and not "caring."

No, redwing, you don't have to thank me at all. AAMOF, it's probably better if we just stop communicating with each other.

[redwing]

OK. I hope you won't take any actions (merging, deleting) on my topics without my consent unless I'm violating any forum rules.

[phred]

phred, please compare timings of baseline backup and 2 subsequent incremental backups of 11-13-5 version and these 2 versions for your library (for inc. backups the number of changed tracks should be large enough (~500-1000), i want to choose more fast version:

Here are the results of my testing...

2016-11-13-5
Initial backup of my 19,000+ track library took about 40 minutes
Auto backup after comments tag was changed in 762 tracks took about 50 minutes

2016-11-14-1
Auto backup took about 45 minutes with 762 tracks changed
New baseline took about 50 minutes

2016-11-14-2
Auto backup took 37 minutes with 762 tracks changed
New baseline took about 15 minutes