| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
Release id #85490 : Lupo Alberto Recrack
should this really be labelled as an ARM release? sure, its a recrack, the original release is from ARM - but does that make it an ARM release? i dont think so :) |
|
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4732 |
I guess people are confused because there is no field available to tag where the original crack is, or where the import comes from. ItÂ’s valuable information, important enough to be listed/searchable and not only put into a comments field. I have asked to get a field connecting imports/recracks to the original releaser. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
sure its valueable info - however putting it as releaser is just stupid. and it requires a comment that points out who really is the releaser and who is not anyway - without it noone will know and assume whoever is added as releaser in the release field IS the releaser and it will do more harm than good.
but what do i know :) |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2594 |
Actually the whole point of this entry is the note, which explains how to get the proof for the recracking; I have edited the entry accordingly.
The entry for the actual recrack is here: Lupo Alberto Preview +2 - of course without ARM as releaser. :-) |
| |
The MeatBall
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 367 |
A field with "original crack" to use both for re-cracks and imports would be nice, it'd also shorten the release-list for the groups that had their cracks imported by 10 different groups a bit :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11390 |
that looks much more sane now :) |
