Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:54:00PM +0100, Jaka Kranjc wrote:
> On Thursday 08 of March 2007 00:56:26 Andrew wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 07:28:07PM +0100, Jaka Kranjc wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 of March 2007 18:18:26 Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> > > > On Mar 07, Jaka Kranjc [lynx AT mages.ath.cx] wrote:
> > > > > cast --queue gives you a nice query to see the HISTORY of the queued
> > > > > spells, so I think it is pretty easy to filter any updates that 
> > > > > don't
> > > > > affect you or that you just won't bother with.
> > > >
> > > > I still either have to ignore them (which causes the queues to get
> > > > bigger, and makes it harder to notice new ones that I need to review),
> > > > or I have to cast them, which requires testing and validating on my
> > > > end, no matter what HISTORY says changed.  I promise you no one 
> > > > running
> > > > a responsible production environment is going to take upstream's word
> > > > for it when receiving any patch to apply.
> > >
> > > I wonder if a simple script that would hack the tablet would work 
> > > without
> > > major breakage (simple grepping shows only gaze patchlevels).
> >
> > Im not sure what you mean by hack the tablet. Modifying the tablet outside
> > of sorcery is not supported, nor should this practice be encouraged or
> > suggested. The tablet is an internal sorcery structure. Hands off.
> That's why I used the term 'hack'.

Whatever you want to call it, please refrain from suggesting it as a 
realistic idea. Maybe your intention wasnt that it was a realistic idea,
in which case, please clarify that next time. Just calling it a hack
probably isnt enough clarification for most people. This is how trouble
starts, scripts get written and do things they shouldnt. Then people
dont understand that they are just hacks and use them anyway. Then people
depend on them. Then they start bit-rotting and changes to sorcery break
the scripts. Or, sorcery changes have to work around some unsupported
hack people now depend on. Please, lets not go down that path (again). :-)

> 
> > Sorcery hold on the other hand, is supported, as would be some other
> > scheme built on top of existing sorcery interfaces (gaze). You dont
> > have to use sorcery queue if you dont want to...
> sorcery hold isn't good enough for this. If you hold a spell it won't ever 
> get 
> queued again, unless you unhold it. So it is useless if you just want to 
> ignore for example a specific patchlevel change. The same would probably 
> apply to a gaze wrapper.
> 

As I said holding, plus something built on top of gaze would be 
sufficient. If the admin doesnt want to update the spell without first
testing it, it probably shouldbe held anyway. I think our sys-admin users
are smart enough to figure out something that works for them without us
providing it out of the box.

-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  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------