Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Request for Sorcery Volunteers

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Request for Sorcery Volunteers
  • Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:38:32 -0800

On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 06:52:19PM +0100, Benoit PAPILLAULT wrote:
> Andrew a ?crit :
>
> >no one said it wasnt...but i guess you can be overly pedantic, pedantic
> >documentation can be helpful, I believe this is actually documented on
> >the wiki as well. I strongly dislike duplicate documentation especially
> >when no one is around to fix it, and I dont know where it is. Theres
> >a vast body of documentation of sorcery on the wiki, but I dont have
> >time to update it, Im busy enough keeping the new things documented,
> >and writing the new code. When we had an active docs team most stuff
> >was documented, or would be updated when things changed. Perhaps you're
> >really just volunteering to be docs team lead? I thought you were on
> >the iso team?
>
> OK. Here's my conclusion and plan:
>
> I'm part of ISO team (still...). I need some documentation about
> sorcery. I thought good software was done by implementing good
> documentation. But on Source Mage, nobody cares/need documenting before
> writing code. This make bugs hard to find and fix.

Let me make it perfectly clear that not documenting before writing code
was what USED to happen, but is NOT what happens NOW. You will notice that
new sorcery code does have a documented spec. And that many of the more
complex portions of sorcery, or the ones that have been re-written ARE
documented. So please dont go around spreading rumors that sorcery is not
documented, it is insulting as team lead to have all my efforts to make
sure code is documented and specs are written be completely and utterly
ignored by someone who in theory is leading a team themselves and is in
theory, supposed to have some idea of whats going on in the rest of
the project. Saying that no one cares about documentation is a lie.

As ISO team LEAD (since you're the only active member) you also have
a responsibility to document your OWN code as well last I checked the
process for making an iso, or the installer code itself is not checked
in or documented, so please document your stuff first :-)

Or at least check it in to perforce (or get someone else to do it for you)
so others can at least review your code. I understand you had some
perforce problems, and I trust that once they are sorted out you will
start checking in your code.

>
> So, since i need it for the ISO, I will document whatever I need and
> fill bugs if something does not behaves like it's documented (wether in
> my docs or elsewhere).

First off, your docs (on sorcery) dont count unless they are approved
by the rest of smgl, if you write your own docs and put them on your
site, they dont mean anything until they're approved and put into our
wiki or manuals. For example if you define that resurrect should work
some way and then complain that it doesnt work that way, you're making
a very poor case. You could say that the design itself is wrong and ask
for an improvement to the design, but you cant just decide that something
should behave some other way without our input.

To be clear, you cant just document something and then when sorcery
doesnt fit your design assumptions call it a bug.

However thats not to say I dont appreciate genuine bugs. :)

> Furthermore, since I might need features/bug fix
> that are not in stable sorcery/grimoire (like the installwatch fix or a
> correct resurect feature), I will implement them in separate script and
> will fix the spell I need in devel grimoire myself.

I dislike your vague attempts at saying ressurect is "incorrect" obviously
if after 3 years of behaving the same way and no one has complained
before its not "incorrect", maybe theres some bugs from bitrot, but the
behavior was obviously made the way it was from the original design,
or to fix bugs that came up. Im sorry it doesnt fit your needs, had
you done a trivial bugzilla search you would have noticed we've had some
bugs filed on resurrect previously and "we're working on it". You'll of
course also notice that the installer works around this problem very
easily and until we get sorcery improved to fit the needs of creating
an iso (let alone being a package management tool for daily use) you'll
need to just use whats in the iso already.

Im getting tired of this lack of collaboration with the rest of the
team. You've come up with "improvements" for sorcery and apparently
installwatch, you've tried to be qa team lead, you've tried to come up
with fixes for grimoire bugs, now you're trying to be docs team lead,
and yet, you dont communicate this work or attempt to involve any of the
other team leads in the designs or discussion. You go off on your own
little planet and do stuff, then come back and wonder why no one pays
attention. You need to understand that there are other teams in this
organization and if you attempt to work with us instead of around us or
without us, you will get a much warmer welcome and get a lot more done,
you will also understand the other components, how they work, how the
teams do things and instead of fighting our process with your own you'll
be able to work with it.

-Andrew


--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | |
|Sorcery Team Lead, Porting Team Lead | |
|Grimoire Guru ham/smgl | ftp://t.armory.com |
|Author and Maintainer of Prometheus | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgptphpnJzS4m.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page