Public SourceMage Discussion List

["David C. Haley" <dhaley AT tamsco.com>]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:33:39 -0700
Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com> wrote:

> If we consider that a social problem it could be mitigated by having a
> single 'main' maintainer.

That is a nice idea, but IMO this would seem to alienate a bit the people 
that would gladly like to chip in here and there with maintaining updating, 
or tweaking things as they get time.

Also, with this said one might consider human nature. If I am given spells to 
maintain I may or may not begin to think they are 'my' spells. I would 
hesitate associateing things directly with people in this form in avoid 
making making things 'personal'. It can cause undo tension and stress IMO 
than is required in teh development process.

This very chain of email can be used probably as a good example. Given this 
is your propose, your idea that you have set forth on this mailing list it 
has generalted quite a lot of replies and interest. I am sure that as you 
have read this you have seem some things that have caused you to sigh, or get 
frustrated. Perhaps that users that just doesn't get what you are trying to 
say, or some that just refuse to go along, rather sticking with what they 
have. If this has happened to you I would say that you are taking things 
personally. Which is natural when people critisize your work or ideas. Now, 
at this point I want to say I don't know if this has happened, it was merely 
an assumption. But, one I made to try and make a point. If anything you might 
have gotten upset that I would make such an assumption which would go to 
prove my point.

In any case, I am just saying that maintainer-spell(s) relationship might be 
a bad way to look at organizing things.

> Its not directly solvable in this layout, or probably any layout.

This is true, and though I would be a fool to argue that any layout would 
solve this problem I would have to say, again IMO, that the current layout 
better facilitates the above functions. Give our currently layout (please 
correct me if I misunderstand this) we have maintainers at a section level 
that maintain in a generl sense what they can in their section; and given 
this layout it does not tie down one spell, or group of spells to any one 
developer/maintainer. To me this allows more easily for those that wish to 
volunteer there time to maintain, update, and tweak things at their leisure 
without intruding in anyone persons domain (ie the specific spell or group 
there of they try to maintain).

Please forgive me if this sets of any bombs or flames, it was not intended to 
do so. I am merely voicing some concerns about things I have experienced in 
the past.

Regards,
SilverS


> -Andrew
> 
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:52:52AM +0400, David C. Haley wrote:
> > with this layout would each spell, assuming they don't end up in 
> > unmaintained, only have one mainter assigned to them? What if more than 
> > one user or developer wants to update, maintain, or tweak a spell?
> > 
> > my two cents, just curious.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > SilverS
> > 
> > On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 19:56:21 -0700
> > Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I decided to put my money where my mouth is and write some 'proof of
> > > concept' scripts for the proposed in-repository/grimoire building
> > > layout change.
> > > 
> > > Theres one to re-arrange the grimoire based on 'maintainer' in the 
> > > format
> > > specified below, and another to revert it back again. There another 
> > > script
> > > to re-assemble the grimoire back to its usual form.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My in-repository layout is as follows:
> > > 
> > > grimoire_name/developer AT sourcemage.org/...
> > >                                   spell1/...
> > >                                           DETAILS
> > >                                           section
> > >                                   spell2/...
> > >                                           DETAILS
> > >                                           BUILD
> > >                                           section
> > > grimoire_name/sections/section1/...
> > >                           FUNCTIONS
> > > grimoire_name/sections/section2/...
> > >                           SECTION2_DETAILS
> > >                           MAINTAINER
> > > 
> > > grimoire_name/...
> > >           FUNCTIONS
> > >           ChangeLog
> > >           libaccount
> > > 
> > > Basically, spells are moved to a directory based on the developer,
> > > theres a special developer named 'unmaintained' as a catchall for
> > > spells with no maintainer. Each spell has a magic file in it called
> > > 'section' this contains a single line with the name of the section the
> > > spell belongs to in the on-disk layout.
> > > 
> > > Theres a 'sections' dir which contains subdirectories, one for each
> > > 'real' section, in that directory are all the files for that section.
> > > 
> > > I assume that there are no developers named 'sections' and 
> > > 'unmaintained'
> > > in this example, and that there wont be any collisions between grimoire
> > > level libraries and developer names.
> > > 
> > > The attached 'adjust_grimoire' script takes two parameters, a grimoire
> > > to start with, and a target directory, it guesses the maintainer and
> > > sets up the above structure. The maintainer guessing basically sucks but
> > > works well enough for this proof of concept. The finished product would
> > > arrange the grimoire inplace, run p4 integ commands, and the user would
> > > specify what sections/spells they maintain along with their name in
> > > some format.
> > > 
> > > The attached 'build_grimoire' script is the inverse of adjust_grimoire,
> > > it takes the above format and turns it back into the grimoire layout we
> > > are familar with (it also removes the 'section' file). A better script
> > > could make use of symlinks for quick updates and space savings.
> > > 
> > > Ive run
> > > adjust_grimoire devel newdevel
> > > build_grimoire newdevel builtdevel
> > > 
> > > then
> > > diff -Naur devel builtdevel
> > > 
> > > The only difference that diff finds is pixieplus missing from the
> > > kde-apps section (the spell is currently duplicated in both kde and
> > > kde-apps sections in the devel grimoire).
> > > 
> > > Enjoy
> > > 
> > > -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/        
> > >  |
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > David C. Haley
> > Network/Satellite Administrator
> > Parsons S & J
> > Baghdad, Iraq
> > Phone: 972.535.3740
> > Email: dhaley AT tamsco.com
> > ---
> > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/         |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> 
> 
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]