sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
- Cc: Nathan Doss <ndoss AT mtlaurel.org>, Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems
- Date: 05 Sep 2002 17:07:13 -0400
I would suggest that for versionsing, the devel version does not
/require/ additional version info. But, for stable, there should be
version info. Since obviously the ISOs will be using stable, but it
won't have the latest stable, it would be misleading and confusing to
have the default have the same version (or lack of version and just call
it stable) as the latest stable, when they are different. Umm... yeah...
Is that a run on sentence?
That said, I don't see the problem with making the version the day the
snapshot is made for devel.
I think that's about all I can say on this issue of the sorcery spell
since I really can't see the problem with writing a spell that works
properly... of course, I haven't tried either ;)
On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 17:15, Nick Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:15:25PM -0400, Nathan Doss wrote:
<snip>
> > * I don't think we want to support explicit versions of sorcery in the
> > spell. I think "devel" and "stable" are good, at least for the time
> > being. I think it's almost right the way it is: if you choose
> > "devel", you get the latest devel tarball, if you choose stable, you
> > get the latest stable tarball.
>
> I strongly disagree that "stable" is good enough. People should know
> exactly what version of sorcery they are running. I do not think it
> is OK to sacrifice this.
>
>
> > * I think VERSION="devel" and VERSION="stable" are good enough and
> > would solve the problem nick mentioned. I don't think we want to
> > support old versions of "stable" or "devel". If someone has a
> > problem, we make them update to the latest stable or latest devel.
> > I don't think we should have actual version numbers for stable or
> > devel. This doesn't mean we can't shoot for milestones and call
> > them "1.0" and "1.1", just that the sorcery update scheme shouldn't
> > use a numbered version scheme.
>
> Same as above.
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92B5D3F1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Seth Woolley, 09/04/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Ryan Abrams, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Seth Woolley, 09/04/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nathan Doss, 09/04/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Dufflebunk, 09/05/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems, Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Dufflebunk, 09/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery spell problems,
Nick Jennings, 09/05/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.