Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Grimoire splitting

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ismael Luceno <ismael.luceno AT gmail.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Grimoire splitting
  • Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:04:00 -0300

El Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:07:50 +0900
flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> escribió:
> Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [11.09.09 16:48]:
<...>
> > Splitting would be useful if we maintained the pieces separately,
> > so we could have a very up-to-date but stable basesystem with the
> > option to use either well-tested stuff or bleeding-edge.
> >
> > Remember that 1) we need to separate stable from unstable stuff,
> > and an version bump in any spell changes the category, and 2)
> > there's a lot of interaction between spells that affect it too.
>
> It's not clear how what you're suggesting is different from Remko's
> original suggestions, unless you are arguing for having truly separate
> grimiores (separate repos in addition to separate releases).

Truly separated grimoires, yes.

> There are pros and cons for both separate repos and one large repo,
> but it's possible to achieve the same end result via either method.

No, it's not equivalent at all. Having a single repo means we have to
resolve QA issues on basesystem every time before we want to assure
something about the rest of the system.

OTOH, if there were separated grimoires, we could do the QA on the
rest of the system using the "approved" basesystem at any time.

> In terms of separation, if there is the additional metadata (QA,
> topic/branch, etc.) then one could easily find all such spells via a
> simple find+grep combination. Perhaps not as optimal as simply having
> a separate repo, but Remko addressed a couple of the problems separate
> repos would cause in his post.

Additional meta-data plus a lot more code = bad.

> > > That is the QA dimension of splitting grimoires. I'd like to add
> > > the possibility to specify other dimensions. A topical dimension
> > > for instance in which we can indicate all spells that belong to
> > > say X, KDE
> > <...>
> >
> > We could use section prefixes for that. Conventions are
> > better/easier than configuration, almost always.
>
> This is just plain bad. We have never had actual conventions for the
> section names, so adding section prefixes wouldn't be a convention at
> all. This would likely turn into the same problem as the KEYWORDS
> issue. Additionally, how does one move spells from one QA to another?

Only for topics (e.g. KDE4 spells would be on kde4*/).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page