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 13:36:23 -0700

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:58:44PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> Sorry to keep replying to my own posts but this idea is growing on me the
> more I think about it.
>
> On Apr 05, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) [jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org] wrote:
> > Does this make sense? Basically we do exactly what we do now, but we
> > clean
> > up and standardize the grimoire sections some and let the general gurus
> > have their own grimoire-level area in p4 and request specific spells they
> > want to maintain be assigned to them there. This requires basically no
> > changes to what we conceptually have now but allows for what I think you
> > guys are after. As main maintainer I'm already farming out the MTAs to
> > those that use them, I would love it if I could actually let them take it
> > this way but still be able to track the level of QC they're getting.
> ...
> >
> > Also, one modifications on this would be to make some tools so they don't
> > actually move the spell from devel to their grimoire, they just somehow
> > mark it there (like scribbler but in a way that supports p4 and what we
> > need). I'm not sure if we actually need this, though.
>
> Actually, this is something else we'd leave up to the section maintainers.
> If I want to actually *give* maintainence of sendmail to swoolley (for
> example), we move it from devel/mail to seth_woolley/mail (p4 integ, p4
> delete), and he integrates it from seth_woolley/mail to test/mail. If I
> prefer that I see/review the changes going through my section, I just allow
> him to take a copy (p4 integ, no delete) and then he integrates from
> seth_woolley/mail to devel/mail and I'm responsible for reviewing and
> integrating it to test from there. This could of course be mixed and
> matched at the section or even spell level depending on what the section
> maintainers wanted for oversight for given spells (or given developers,
> heh).
>
>
>
> Someone please hurry up and tell me what's fundamentally wrong with this
> whole idea as well before I get attached to it. :-)

This is similar to my notion of symlinked grimoires. You can accomplish it
natively in perforce by either just using a symlink grimoire and adding
wrapper scripts to readlink all the symlinks back to their normal form,
or a user modifies their client view the way they wanted. As an aside, my
client views before the great re-org were basically the way the grimoire
is afterwards its a rather convenient way to do things, but of course,
you break inheritence unless you have a way to scribble the spells into
their self-contained form to preserve inheritence (back to symlinks).
Integs from symlinked/scribbled/etc spells are going to be ugly though.

That is of course if the grimoire team wants section inheritence, if
not its then go ahead and ignore my point of view since its inheritence
centric. :-)

-Andrew


--
__________________________________________________________________________
|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/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page