Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:19, Duane Malcolm wrote:
> Again I'm saying things that may stir emotions, be it good or bad
> emotions. I sent this yesterday but I couldn't find it in the mailing list.
>
> If we create a STABILITY tag in the DETAILS file then we can remove the
> stable, testing, devel grimoires. It's basic use will have it set to
> stable, test, or devel. I think it would be more advantageous to give it
> a percentage, let's call it a stability factor. The great thing is this
> stability factor can be set using a user feedback system or by the
> gurus. The feedback system may work like so. Everytime, a user casts a
> spell the details about whether the cast succeeded ot failed is appended
> to a report file. The user can then choose to submit this report to
> sourcemage, where sourcemage uses it to generate stability factors for
> spells. Here is an example of how it may work:
>
Someone correct me if i am wrong but the reason we have multiple grimoires is 
to provide stability. Contents of stable grimoire are KNOWN to work in 
combination with each other. How would  version dependancies be sorted out 
with a STABILITY system ?
IE. 
If stable grimoire mozilla needs gtk+2 2.4.2 then that is the GTK+2 version 
in 
stable. If mozilla 1.5 needs gtk+2 2.4.9 how does a stability rating help 
this ? Stability that is reliant on so many other other packages cant be 
quantified so simply IMHO. 
Versioned dependancies may sort out  some of the problems with this, i have 
heard mention of them but don't know if they are on the roadmap or have 
already been discussed and veto-ed?
IMHO a "stability %" system is unnecessary if the grimoires are working 
right. 
The only problem with the current system is not enough developers.
If we had the man power, then stable, test and devel grimoires would be 
almost 
indistinguishable from each other. If some sections(no fingerpointing or 
blaming) weren't already months out of date then stable would be more 
uptodate. 
**If stable were more uptodate would we really be having this thread?**

Spells could migrate to stable quickly after extensive testing, including 
updated dependancies if needed(once again after extensive testing) and the 
end-user would have a choice of whether to upgrade all 5 needed spells or to 
wait until a larger update is necessary.It is ALWAYS possible to refuse to 
cast a spell if you are happy with your current setup. but if you DO choose 
to update then all dependancies should be met.
Feedback from users will become crucial in this so please sharpen your 
pencils 
and get into this thread!
Hamish
- -- 
Do You SMuGL!?
# Linux so advanced it may as well be magic!
# http://www.sourcemage.org/
# A onestop guide to Defenestration!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/D4c38fSufZR6424RApxVAJ9NJfMtc2nEtYpztlkl8pxJSISGcwCfXW6J
0w0A50fPcVaXwOTZLREfuMo=
=435G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----