Public SourceMage Discussion List

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [11.09.10 14:16]:
> > 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.

Please read more carefully. I clearly stated "end result". The end
result is guaranteed QA. The process in achieving it is what is
different, which is what I mentioned as the pros and cons for both
methods. I never stated that both methods would have equivalent
processes in achieving the same end result.

> > 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.

There is no additional code, only the additional metadata, which
consists of 2 lines (one for the QA dimension and one for the "topic").
The metadata would affect neither typical developers nor end users, as
it would only be used when releasing new versions of the grimoire (which
is handled by the grimoire lead and/or his assistants). Of course you
could do additional things with the metadata if you wanted to (just like
you already can, such as running find/grep/etc. over all spells
containing FOO=bar), but typically no one does.

> > 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*/).

No, you'd have exactly the same problem for QA. If a spell is in stable,
but is then updated without being fully tested, it will move to another
prefix. The same would happen for a spell that was previously untested,
but was then properly tested and thus "graduated" to stable. This is, as
I said, just plain bad compared to changing a single line in DETAILS.

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpUnL6xi_Fyl.pgp
Description: PGP signature