Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:12:39PM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 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.

If you're willing to do it, by all means go ahead :)
The best way would probably to create a wiki page about it so we can
easily change stuff until we got a final scheme everyone agrees with.

> > > 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?

Could be useful, though the main idea behind a general scheme for
section naming is that it would be clear from the name what's in the
section. That might be hard to achieve though.

-- 
Arwed v. Merkatz                              Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
                                                    http://www.sourcemage.org