Public SourceMage Discussion List

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

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

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 06:20, Eric Sandall wrote:
...snip...

> Cauldron Lead: Hamish Greig
> Cauldron Lead, Assistant: Wolfgang Scheicher

Because Worf is interested I immediately stand down as cauldron lead. It 
seemed I was leader of one so the title has little relevance to me. 
I am putting this effort into the ISO so that it correctly reflects the 
heroic 
efforts, over the last year, of a dozen very active Grimoire gurus. My goal 
is a spell for ISO creation, a good set of docs for the spell and installer 
scripts and adding all  the features developers  wanted/requested, I have no 
long term commitment to the position.

...snip...

> The Grimoire Team is also looking for a dedicated maintainer for the stable
> grimoire. We would like stable to be kept up-to-date, but not broken. ;)
> Currently there are massive updates to stable at sporadic intervals. We are
> also looking for someone to maintain the z-rejected grimoire, as our two
> current gurus have time contstraints and have requested assistance. There
> are also several unmaintained sections for any interested in helping out
> and learning more about writing packages.

Games grimoire and display section need a replacement for me too.

Also now that the sections are truly open, section guru's need to subscribe 
to 
the perforce emails for their section, it is ridiculous to try to maintain a 
section if you have no knowledge of the changes.

...snip...

> The Team Leads
> themselves will hold a meeting (anyone may come, but this is for Lead
> discussion) bi-weekly at a to-be-determined time by all of the Leads in
> #smgl-admin. 

All lead positions need to subscribe to the perforce change emails for the 
other teams. As an example, if they didn't get these reports from perforce 
they wouldn't know of the 20,000+ submissions by less than 15 people in the 
grimoire team over the last year, nor would they be aware of that list as a 
forum for open impromptu development discussion.

>
> New versioning on the ISOs proposed to make more sense. Each monthly ISO
> will use the date created as the version (e.g. "20030407") and ISOs which
> meet a certain feature list will be given the standard version (e.g.
> "1.0").

I would like to continue using pre 1.0 numbering for now. 
Naming according to date (ie a snapshot) only seems relevant for post 1.0 
when 
all the features have been added and the rewrite done. Then a monthly update 
will only be minor bugfixes and spell updates and using the date snapshot 
nomenclature would be appropriate. For now, while I am adding and rewriting 
so much I would rather release a new version number (0.9.3 -> 0.9.9) 
everytime my work warrants it.
If it would help people I can break up the ISO roadmap into numbered 
releases, 
rather than the all-encompassing 1.0 goals I have listed now.

...snip...
>
> New roadmaps will use a list of features as an indicater of when to release
> and not solid dates, as we tend to not make them (volunteers only have so
> much time). We should still have some form of a timeline to encourage
> progress, but how we are to do that is yet to be decided.

I think this agrees with what I have just said about ISO naming? 

> Sorcery 1.9 is going to be released after the "real" bugs (not feature
> requests/enhancements) in devel Sorcery are fixed.

Are the status of these bugs open to discussion ? I found previously that 
many 
bugs were moved into feature request/enhancement category, but it was not 
possible to discuss their status or their importance and have them 
reassessed.

...snip...

Hamish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAS+Yy8fSufZR6424RAk+EAJ9CCLh0k+wvoXTAm2cg1iwW/5/2BQCghb1A
wm2yzPZIWY8bkaW5kurwBhs=
=VJEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----