Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

On May 15, Flavien Bridault [vlaaad AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> Le lundi 15 mai 2006 ? 11:31 -0500, Jeremy Blosser a ?crit :
> > On May 15, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 03:38:42PM +0200, Andra?? ruskie Levstik wrote:
> > > > With my recent work on smgb and smbsd I've found that we have a rather
> > > > incosistent way of handling patches so I was doing some brainstorming 
> > > > on the
> > > > issue(with input from others) and this is what I came up with:
> > > 
> > > I like the general idea, comments below.
> > 
> > Can someone explain the gain of standardizing these so much when we don't
> > even standardize the format of things in spell files except where
> > completely necessary?  If there's a benefit, ok, but we don't usually
> > dictate things just to dictate them.  Often times patches are from an
> > upstream source and I don't really think we should be modifying or 
> > renaming
> > these unless they don't work as-is.
> 
> I understood one of the main goal was automatic patching. But all the
> informations in the header are not necessary for that indeed, but I
> think it's rather a good idea to do that. What do you find not enough
> standardized in spell files ? If you are right anyway, it would not be
> bad to start somewhere ;-)

It's well defined what they do, but we don't really specify much about the
internal details such as comments, formatting, etc.  HISTORY is the one
major exception because that's parsed by sorcery.

Attachment: pgpxzTBS_aagb.pgp
Description: PGP signature