sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- From: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:11:59 -0300
El Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:58:28 +0800
sqweek <sqweek AT gmail.com> escribió:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:34 AM, flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> wrote:
> > In my opinion
> > it's better to keep the sorcery/cleanse/etc., but clean up the name
> > space for consistency. As an example, dispel -d doesn't dispel
> > (well, OK, it does, but it also casts, which is the important
> > part). This should be moved to cast -d in my opinion.
>
> I vote for a new command - resurrect/recall/exhume/reanimate.
>
> > Also, having all the different
> > cast/gaze/cleanse/scribe commands accessible via sorcery (like
> > sorcery cast $SPELL) would help, because then users really only
> > need to remember one command: sorcery. If they forget what to do
> > with it, RTFM :)
>
> No, no, god no. One of my favourite things about smgl is that it
> avoids[1] the gigantic "do-everything-under-the-sun" interface
> (complete with man page that if printed out could just about wrap
> around the circumference of the sun), in favour of smaller, simpler
> tools.
>
git does something like that, and it's composed of many small tools;
these features aren't mutually exclusive.
> No, the nice part about smgl is not having to read through gobs of
> man pages everytime you want to do something. Not having to remember
> 18 different flags and strange command line semantics because there's
> one tool to do each task so each just needs a small set of options.
>
+1
> I wouldn't say sorcery is perfect - I think the scripts could use
> some more encouragement to work together... eg, cast --queue doesn't
> need to exist if sorcery queue just listed the out-of-date spells on
> stdout.
>
> For me, the nicest toolsets come out of having a rich set of
> primitives. I don't have any problem with sorcery queue behaving as it
> does, as I wouldn't consider sorcery a primitive - it does fancy menus
> and stuff for the user's benefit. But, sorcery queue should be
> implemented on top of a more primitive command that simply does output
> out-of-date spells.
+1
<...>
> gaze
> activity/install/install-full/install-spell/compile/sum/md5sum/size
> All log related. I suggest moving them to a new script "journal", and
> normalise the interface so that the default is all spells, and each
> line of output is prefixed with spell-version (maybe only if multiple
> spells were selected).
-1, IMO, these commands should be renamed, but kept into gaze.
> gaze show-held/show-exiled
> freeze -l (for list)
>
> Finally, move all the single queries to a new script, "divine" (as in
> the verb).
> gaze provides/what/short/where/website/sources
> divine provider/what/short/(section/path)/website/source
>
> Which leaves gaze with a bunch of random stuff, and probably breaks
> as near every script as I'm going to get without being silly.
> -sqweek
-1.
--
Ismael Luceno
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/01/2008
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
sqweek, 04/01/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Ismael Luceno, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Karsten Behrmann, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
David Kowis, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Thomas Orgis, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Robert Figura, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, David Kowis, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
eekee57, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, eekee57, 04/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Thomas Orgis, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
David Kowis, 04/01/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.