sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Source Mage code commit list
List archive
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review
- From: seth AT swoolley.homeip.net
- To: Daniel Goller <dgoller AT satx.rr.com>
- Cc: SM-Commit Daemon <sm-commit AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 18:08:18 -0700
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:55:00PM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > And did you check with ruskie before removing a package from his
> > grimoire and Arwed if it is okay to move into his? ;)
> >
> > -sandalle
>
> I did the move on ruskie's suggestion, since he is eager to get rid of
> it, it also fits much better in science than anything else, i do owe
> Arwed the question if he wanted it there. (sorry, i missed that, no excuses)
>
> so should i revert this in games?
Yes, the spell should exist in both grimoires. When the spell hits the
stable grimoire, then and only then do you remove it from games.
>
> this leaves me wondering if i can get an OK from everyone to add new
> spells as long as i take care of them, and not simply dump work on them,
> although i do want to be courteous, i would like to be able to add
> spells i don't neglect on a truly free agent basis. (if not i have to
> just get better at emailing the respective section maintainers ahead of
> time, whatever works best for everyone)
> take care of them meaning add myself to the section MAINTAINER file, in
> the fashion as it is done in mail/MAINTAINER, and be responsible for
> their maintenance, as to not just drop stuff into a section and then let
> others have to pick up the pieces, nono :)
> that would be for new spells, i would ask in any case where i would like
> to maintain a spell that already exists.
I don't think anybody would object to your taking on maintainership of a
few spells. In fact, that's what general gurus tend to do. We just
don't feel we need to lock people into a section and/or lock them into
specific spells if they don't want while providing those who want to
cover a whole section to be able to do so. Generally the section
maintainers welcome contributions, just discuss what you'd like to do
with each section maintainer before making drastic changes.
>
> i do apologize for the bumpy move, when ruskie told me to integ, delete,
> submit he must have implied a waiting period i did not pick up on.
> should be the only thing i will move in a long time.
Nah, I just think he wasn't thinking about the issue at the time.
-
[SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Perforce Review Daemon, 05/16/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Eric Sandall, 05/17/2006
- Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Daniel Goller, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Jeremy Blosser, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Daniel Goller, 05/17/2006
- Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review, Jeremy Blosser, 05/17/2006
- Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review, Eric Sandall, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Daniel Goller, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
seth, 05/17/2006
- Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik, 05/18/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Jeremy Blosser, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Eric Sandall, 05/17/2006
-
Re: [SM-Commit] PERFORCE change 79419 by Daniel Goller for review,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/17/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.