sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes]
- From: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
- To: "Mathieu L." <lejatorn AT smgl.homelinux.net>
- Cc: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes]
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:16:17 -0800 (PST)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Mathieu L. wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 12:00:16AM -0800, Andrew wrote:
<snip>
Of course, people will always have different ideas on stuff. Is the
system-update feature a sorcery sub-command? or an option to the
sorcery tool?
Following tradition we should now start a long verbose thread on the topic
without any real progress, then have it abruptly end without resolution.
:-)
I'm glad you're joking on that, bringing up what seems to be quite an
important problem to me; because as you said it happened already several
times and I think it really slows down smgl's evolving.
So, what I propose here is that we think about a formal way of solving
this kind of issue. I mean for example why don't we just call an
official vote when there is a clear divergence of opinions between 2
(or more) devs?
For this precise case, since someone clearly suggested that he'd prefer
the usual long options syntax instead of the subcommand syntax, it would
be up to him (if you, as the responsible for such an implementation
still don't agree with him) to call for an offcial vote.
Then all devs
would vote according to some rules (which sandalle would be pleased to
come up with ;) ) and then you would have to comply with the result of
that vote. Of course, this is only an example on how things could be
done, but at least I think it would somehow end up in a productive
result.
What do you all think about that? (should we vote about it? ;) )
The voting is a horrible idea, IMO. ;) If we are to vote on every
issue that two or more developers disagree on, then we shouldn't even
have the Team Leads. We vote on the Team Leads so they can make these
decisions after weighing the pros and cons and listening to the
developer (and, when pertinent, user ;)) feedback.
- -sandalle
- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDvBD0HXt9dKjv3WERAhnQAJ4iyAKrR5BbFSBeaWQ1ASlZxVuFVwCfdJxv
xeCkYPX7os952wRCLmH/lEg=
=H64H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Andrew, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Jason Flatt, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Andrew, 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 01/04/2006
-
[SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes],
Mathieu L., 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes], Flavien Bridault (Disk Guru), 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes],
Paul Mahon, 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes], Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes],
Andrew, 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes], Pieter Lenaerts, 01/05/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Decisions [Was: Re: sorcery menu changes], Eric Sandall, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Andrew, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Jason Flatt, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Ladislav Hagara, 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes, Eric Sandall, 01/04/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes, Seth Alan Woolley, 01/04/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] sorcery menu changes,
Andrew, 01/04/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.