Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Let's make Source Mage not suck!

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] Let's make Source Mage not suck!
  • Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:27:48 -0800

On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 06:34:58PM +0100, Mathieu L. wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 08:54:56AM -0800, Andrew wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The release cycles we've tried, the only person helping fix spells was
> > usually seth. Nobody else. That made it difficult to have the bugs fixed
> > in all the spells we wanted. Also, I cant speak for seth, but I imagine
> > its frustrating trying to fix tons of bugs in the grimoire with no one
> > helping and most people version bumping spells left and right.
>
> you know most of the bugs I had in ftp section were posted against
> stable or stable-rc, and they were not version bumps. So I fixed a few
> of them in test, and requested for integration in stable-rc and stable,
> wasn't that how we were supposed to work?

Sort of, the mis-understanding is that you were supposed to fix all the
bugs in the entire section. Only the spells in whatever list we had
picked mattered. The rest of the fixes are "nice-to-have" and would get
picked up in the cycle. The shouldn't have been to fix all the bugs in
all the sections right now before or else we cant release. It was a
mistake that it was presented that way.

Also, when I talk about version bumps, Im not referring directly to you. I
know that several people did earnestly work on fixing all the bugs in
their section, and that was the best thing to do. I apologize if it sounds
like Im belittling the efforts of those who did earnestly participate.
Im talking in general, and nothing I say should be taken personally.
I DO appreciate the effort you and others put in to fix their section.

>
> > So, if we try the process again with a few more volunteers, and a more
> > realistic list of spells, we can get a new stable out in short order.
> >
> > I suggest for the next round, basesystem spells only. We can make sure all
> > those spells work pretty easily. You can build all of them in a few hours.
> > I modified all of them for install-root a year or so ago in an evening.
> > I think its do-able. Of course if init.d isnt working, we need to either
> > fix it, or back it out.
>
> > The process will work, but we have to give it a chance, theres only one
> > way to do that, which is to do the work.
>
> Fair enough. Narrowing the problem to a bunch of spells (the basesystem
> ones) is another way to decrease the workload, it indeed can work imho.
> But as Thomas said, ppl tend to work more if you point them to the exact
> task to do. For example, a mail to the list with:

gaze DEPENDS basesystem :-)

I think that you have a good insight in that people work better when
guided. So paraphrasing, maybe a little more micro-management would help?
My previous post alluded to this, with everyone picking one spell to
shepard through the process.

-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