Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>]

Yes I use local grimoires, no I don't use scribbler because I do work
with the development releases that I don't even want accidentally
getting into the development grimoire.

Also as a user I hated having to go though all the sections to find the
spells that were for my environment to see if I wanted to install them.

Though I don't think having section by maintainer is good though
complaints about unmaintained spells it me is strange considering all
the unmaintained we have now.  I don't think that will change anytime
soon.

I don't think you are going to satisfy everyone with any layout you
choose.  There will always be the very vocal group of either way that
will complain.

So far I haven't heard any clear reason to change the layout of the
grimoires other than to scratch someone or others itch.

CuZnDragon
Robin Cook


On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 14:45 -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Apr 05, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) [jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org] wrote:
> > On Apr 05, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 01:03:42PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > > > 1) As already suggested, continue to sort the grimoire by a taxonomy, 
> > > > but
> > > >    add a MAINTAINER back to individual spells.  The section 
> > > > maintainer wins
> > > >    if the spell doesn't have one, but if the spell has one it wins.  
> > > > Then
> > > >    go a step farther and create some guru-tools that make it easy for
> > > >    maintainers to grab just their own spells into a work area and go 
> > > > from
> > > >    there.  This is the right place for new tools, stuff that just
> > > >    maintainers have to worry about.  This avoids the turnover problem 
> > > > as
> > > >    well and is probably the right way to do it if we can figure out 
> > > > what
> > > >    tools we need for the maintainers.
> > > 
> > > We got rid of MAINTAINERS for a reason -- they were never accurate.
> > 
> > Hrm, this should tell us something.  :-)
> 
> I want to get back to this one because it's the one the most people have
> indicated some kind of favor toward.  The main objection has been that the
> MAINTAINERS variable didn't work; without knowing the history I'll take
> your word for it, but let's see if we can solve that problem so we can just
> move on with fixing the overloaded sections.
> 
> Taking some hints for the other thread about per-maintainer "grimoires",
> what if we suggest something similar to the following:
> 
> 1) maintainers scribe the devel/test/stable grimoires (they do this already)
> 
> 2) they also scribe a local grimoire (most probably do this too)
> 
> 3) they use scribbler to link the spells they maintain from devel to their
>    local grimoire (a lot are probably doing something like this already)
> 
> It seems to me then the main thing we're missing is a way to automagically
> detect what's being maintained and by whom.  We just need a way to
> formalize #3 above and make the matainainence information flow upstream.
> 
> One way to do this would be to go ahead and add per-maintainer grimoires in
> p4, instead of it just being local.  People who wanted to maintain a
> certain spell could do so by moving it from devel to their named grimoire.
> This makes devel the "unmaintained" section, and makes it easy for people
> to see who is maintaining what.  Code promotion goes from devel or
> maintainer grimoires to test as it does now, which is the point at which
> the maintainer distinction disappears for users.
> 
> Taking this a step further (and closer to what we have now), devel isn't
> "unmaintained", it's maintained by the section maintainers as we have
> today.  They're responsible at the section level for federating out
> individual spells to the people that want to use/maintain them, and then
> tracking if that person dies and they need to bring that spell back in and
> take care of it themselves.  We also keep MAINTAINER at a section level
> because the section maintainers are really the ones responsible for those
> spells in a QA/bugzilla perspective.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I realize it doesn't address Andrew's concerns with moving spells around
> and breaking the existing inheritance.
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part