Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On Feb 23, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:02:40AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > On Feb 23, Flavien Bridault [f.bridault AT fra.net] wrote:
> > > Le Mercredi 23 F?vrier 2005 01:29, Jeremy Blosser a ?crit :
> > > > Comments/suggestions/name changes/hate mail welcome.
> > > 
> > > I love these new sections :) I think we should do as well fo others big 
> > > sections.
> > 
> > Yes, if people like this kind of division it would make sense to do the
> > rest in the same kind of scheme as well.  I can work on this if Arwed/etc.
> > wants, but I know it isn't on the current priorities list...
> 
> I thought about that too, I will split the video section in a similar
> way the audio stuff is split soon. For section maintainers it's
> basically their decision what to do with their section, but of course it
> would be nicer if we can agree on a general scheme for this.

I Agree: it needs to be up to section maintainers, but a recommended scheme
would be nice.  The more standard it is the better for users.

Would anyone mind if I threw together a general scheme in the next week and
sent it out for comments?  I wouldn't include actual spells or anything,
just an idea for how things might generally be organized, similar to what I
proposed for utils.  It sounds like several other people want to reorganize
their sections in a similar way, so if we have a general scheme in front of
us first we can do it a (mostly) standard way.

> > Subsections would be nice if they are possible, but that may be too much
> > change to do all at once (I assume it would mean changes to sorcery).
> 
> I'm not too fond of the idea of subsections. Divisions like
> <primaryName-subName> is easier to handle imo.

Fair enough.  BTW, have we ever considered adding something like a SUMMARY
file to the top level of each section to list what kinds of things go in
there?

Attachment: pgpuDfnbJWmwV.pgp
Description: PGP signature