Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] alternative grimoire layout

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] alternative grimoire layout
  • Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:24:28 -0700

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:03:47PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Apr 05, Andrew [afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com] wrote:
> > [snip another proposal]
>
> Heh, so we basically have 3 approaches to this (not surprising) :
>
> 1. one based on a new user perspective (because I am still a new user and
> I'm pretty sure I'm mostly asking for what I'm looking for as a new user)
>
> 2. one based on the (legitimate) needs of the spell maintainers
>
> 3. one based on the (legitimate) needs of the sorcery system maintainers

To be clear I wasnt saying may organizational strategy was for the
needs of sorcery, sorcery doesnt care at all what sections things go
in, but spells by their nature inherit from sections in a natural way,
I was just trying to bring that point to the surface.

I dont necesarily see 2 and 3 as distinct categories given my explaination
above and sorcery's stance on sections, if people want to forego give up
the inheritence advantages by organizing sections in a way that doesnt
lend itself thats fine. My point is just that we can simultaneously have
a grimoire layout that utilizes section inheritence, which also in some
cases makes life easier on developers, and have symlinked layouts that
suit the user/developers needs while using file system level commands.

So, yes, my explaination (to me at least) would be sane for all '3' goals.

>
> Is there a sane way to provide for the needs of all 3?
>
> > Now, respond with why that idea sucks and lets continue talking about this
> > for another few weeks until we eventually all get tired and do nothing,
> > ready? go!
>
> Yeah, that's pretty much what I expect too. So let's keep in mind that at
> some point we have to do *something*; this all started around the question
> of getting some maintainers for the spells in the utils section, and that's
> not solving itself while we debate.



> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss


--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | acedit at armory.com |
|Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpAeHP2bReng.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page