Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...

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] SCM tools...
  • Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:28:46 -0800

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 06:01:02PM -0600, David Kowis wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrew wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:39:53PM +0100, Andrew ruskie Levstik wrote:
> >> /me has a feeling he just volunteered himself to reorganaze the entire
> >> grimoire...
> >>
> >> Ohhhh well I am insane after all... will atleast have something to do...
> >>
> >
> > Since this topic seems to come up from time to time, I'll recap where
> > it last left off.
> >
> > Theres a couple ways to organize stuff:
> > 1) by maintainer
> > 2) by code-reusage
> > 3) by some other random category like language, type, or usage
> >
> > Option 1 has the advantage that developers can own spells they actually
> > maintain, rather than an entire section where they might not use
> > everything. Its clear whats owned by someone, or by a group of people,
> > and what isnt.
> >
> > Option 2 fits naturally with the grimoire/section inheritence we have
> > setup, eg devel-python. Re-using code across sections makes it
> > significantly harder to have portable spells.
> >
> > Option 3 makes the most sense from a users perspective since they could
> > (in theory) find stuff because its well organized.
> >
> > Theres no reason we can't just use searchable keywords to help users
> > find spells, and possibly to organize them into a multi-level symlinked
> > hierarchy. That would accomplish the goals of option 3 *without* having
> > to move spells around in the repository. Also, as evidenced from past
> > grimoire re-org discussions, categorial organizations that make sense
> > are different for every person. Trying to come up with one that satisfies
> > everyone isnt going to happen. Its a loosing proposition.
> >
> > In other words, lets not bother trying to find the one true categorial
> > organization scheme. Organize by code-reuse first, then by
> > maintainership. Then use keywords to accomplish categorizing things (as
> > opposed to picking one of a half dozen categories something could fit in).
> >
> > As an aside, I also wrote some scripts to re-arrange or build the
> > grimoire on its way from the repository to the tree we are all familiar
> > with. Basically spells can get organized in the repository based on who
> > owns them. Then the scripts collate them into sections where they best
> > share code with other spells.
> >
> > Perhaps the grimoire lead candidates can speak their thoughts on this
> > topic :-)
>
> I think this is a great idea. It'll be efficient to organize by code
> reuse. A totally flat grimoire, as mentioned by Oadaeh I don't think of
> as being such a bad thing, but it would require a re-work of gaze
> section and gaze where. Just some things to think about. I like the idea
> of being able to produce "views" of the grimoire.
>
> gaze keyword scm would produce the aforementioned list. Or something
> like that.
>

Im not really a fan of the flat grimoire, I like the two level structure
we have now. It provides enough seperation that people can setup custom
default builds for a given section and have it not effect other sections,
having a flat grimoire takes that away.

-Andrew

--
_________________________________________________________________________
| Andrew D. Stitt | acedit at armory.com | astitt at sourcemage.org |
| irc: afrayedknot | Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
| 1024D/D39B096C | 76E4 728A 04EE 62B2 A09A 96D7 4D9E 239B D39B 096C |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page