sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such
- From: Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:04:57 -0700
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:34:45AM -0700, Andrew wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:41:59AM +0200, Flavien Bridault wrote:
> > Le mercredi 20 avril 2005 ? 11:33 +0200, Benoit PAPILLAULT a ?crit :
> > > Seth Alan Woolley a ?crit :
> > > > The list below is more accurate, as the perl-deprecateds will be
> > > > deleted
> > > > and didn't have history entries put on them when they were made
> > > > deprecated.
> > >
> > > >>Maybe sorcery should assume a spell with INSTALL in it is build api
> > > >>2?
> > > >>
> > > >>Or we could just fix these spells...
> > >
> > > Fixing spell is easier IMO and it's better that spells work as they
> > > should do and as we have documented, instead of adding a new (and
> > > useless) feature to sorcery.
> >
> > Yes, we can't add a sorcery feature for every mistake made by
> > developers... ;-)
> >
> > Fixing spells sounds well better, even if Sandalle should definitively
> > be no longer your friend, Seth :-D
>
> Music to my ears (or something)
> You guys rule! :-)
This is amazing. The only replies were that gurus should take personal
responsibility for their actions. /me thinks we're turning over a new
leaf.
Seth
--
Seth Alan Woolley [seth at positivism.org], SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 00BA3AF3 = 8BE0 A72E A47E A92A 0737 F2FF 7A3F 6D3C 00BA 3AF3
Security Team Member Source Mage GNU/Linux http://www.sourcemage.org
Elected Coordinating Committee Member, Pacific Green Party of Oregon
Attachment:
pgpJ9uRejgC56.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Flavien Bridault, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Andrew, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Andrew, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Flavien Bridault, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Eric Sandall, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Arwed von Merkatz, 04/20/2005
- Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such, Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Benoit PAPILLAULT, 04/20/2005
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] build_api 2 spells that are not marked as such,
Seth Alan Woolley, 04/20/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.