sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Pieter Lenaerts <e-type AT sourcemage.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 09:02:15 +0100
Op vr, 10-03-2006 te 14:18 -0800, schreef Andrew:
> 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.
while I of course understand and acknowledge the advantages of 1 and 2 I
think option 3 is the simplest way for users and we should stick with
that.
imo the keyword solution is just making things more complicated without
giving a real advantage.
I think the code reuse can (and is atm?) achieved in a different way
than throwing away our sections.
As of 2), I think per spell maintainership as a general rule will end us
up with only a couple spells that have 5 candidates for maintainers, and
all other spells with no maintainer. if I just look at editors section I
can point out that vim won't have a trouble finding a maintainer, but
who uses cooledit? who would maintain yudit?
> 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).
keywords will be subject of discussion then
the argument that you can't ever find "the one and only correct section"
for a spell simply points out that this is impossible for all spells: in
real life things aren't all black or all white, so we shouldn't make a
priority out of it iyam.
so far for my rant, I think we should stick with our simple,
hierarchical solution as it is now, and not complicate things.
:D
--
Pieter Lenaerts
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
"Linux so advanced it may well be magic"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., sqweek, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Arwed von Merkatz, 03/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Arwed von Merkatz, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Eric Sandall, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew, 03/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Jason Flatt, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
David Kowis, 03/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Andrew, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Pieter Lenaerts, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Andrew, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Mathieu L., 03/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., David Kowis, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Andrew, 03/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Arwed von Merkatz, 03/13/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools..., Robin Cook, 03/13/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew, 03/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Mathieu L., 03/11/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew, 03/10/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM tools...,
Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/10/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.