sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Geoffrey Derber <Geoffrey.Derber AT Trinity.edu>
- To: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT optimaltec.com>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org, Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:08:36 -0500
Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
That almost sounds like it's shifting the complex part around a bit. Rather than having multiple simple spells, we would have more complex single spells.
Not really, I'm suggesting to solve this in sorcery, and the second DETAILS would be needed anyway.
I was thinking about this. Why would we need a second DETAILS? Why not a single DETAILS like what is done in something like winex, with some manipulation through the PREPARE file. I'm actually beginning to like this idea more and more.
If the spell is set up right, users would not have both the -devel spell and the stable installed, the CONFLICTS file. I also don't see using requires really messing up the grimoire much. I think this is a viable option.
In the end though, my main point was to try and give user the option to install the devel version, without forcing it on them.
Than the first question should be, why current system of devel/test/stable grimoires doesn't solve this? Maybe instead of pushing from devel to test every week or two, we have to establish some kind of a "signal" in a spell as to whether it's ready to go into test/stable? And that wouldn't be just a section guru's call, but something like "three successful" installs. If sorcery would send back (non-private) information that such and such spell has just succeeded installing (or group such messages into packages to send all of it at once), our "back-end" would push the spell into test after three successful reports?
I personally look at it as how well tested the current spell with the current version of the software is working with our setup, ie sorcery with all the configuration possiblities that we support. Even the "three successful" installs method would not prevent something like only the stable version software reaching the stable grimoire. In fact, I think that might speed up the movement of development version software into the stable grimoire.
Geoff
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Hamish Greig, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jason Flatt, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Duane Malcolm, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Duane Malcolm, 07/12/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Hamish Greig, 07/12/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Eric Schabell, 07/12/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Jason Flatt, 07/11/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Hamish Greig, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/10/2003
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions,
Geoffrey Derber, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Eric Sandall, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Duane Malcolm, 07/11/2003
- Re: [SM-Discuss] devel / stable versions, Jason Flatt, 07/11/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.