Warning: V2.49 can change users settings made with V2.44

I ran V2.49 installed in a separate directory from V2.44, and upon reverting to V2.44 found that my references to BAND had been replaced by references to ALBUMARTIST.

Bad. Mp3tag should not secretly interefere with use settings thus.

I guess this is a design decision in connection with http://www.mp3tag.de/en/changelog.html .

[2010-10-13] CHG: renamed field name BAND to ALBUMARTIST

But a poor one.

I suggest this behaviour be removed or at least made optional, failing which a warning be given to the user.

QUOTE (http://help.mp3tag.de/start_whatsnew.html)
Mp3tag v2.47

Tag fields renamed
With this release some of the tag fields that are used for format strings, actions, columns, exports, and filters are renamed to have more accessible and intuitive names. This also means that all parts of Mp3tag where you have used the old names have to be updated. We know that this is an invasive change but think that it was a step necessary to keep it everything maintainable and understandable for new users of the program.
Please see the list below for details on the renamed tag fields:

Thanks chrizoo but that makes no reference to the behaviour reported. And indeed its

indicates the behaviour reported is not Working as Designed.

I do not think, that only the usage of two different install folders would divide two Mp3tag versions from each other.
As long as two installed versions of Mp3tag exist (how can this be resolved?), they possibly share the same %APPDATA%\Mp3tag\ folder structure for all the user related data and working files, especially for the files mp3tag.cfg and Mp3tagSettings.zip.
This way a true downgrading might not work.
You have to use the complete old Mp3tagSettings.zip and maybe other user and version related files together with an old version of Mp3tag.exe.


Thanks, but that should make no difference, if Mp3tag was working as declared here:

then what's the diff between post #2 and #1 ?

you said it yourself:

My quote is just the verbose release comment corresponding to the changelog.


It doesn't explain the reported behaviour.

thanks for explaining