Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery]Re: sorcery spell problems

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ryan Abrams <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: eric AT schabell.com
  • Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]Re: sorcery spell problems
  • Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:53:46 -0500


* I think we should stay with one spell and make that work rather than
trying another approach (again).

definately... lets face it, we are approaching grimoire freezes and 1.0 rc
deadlines quicker than you think. I think you guys are doing fine, except
that it was a big change that of course has bugs that need to be ironed
out... if you keep up the bug hunting tempo that has gone on up to now, they
will be fixed, just prioritize and fix, fix, fix! ;)

We are all helping with what we can, so don't give up hope. This single spell
is the way to go, and easy to understand rather than two with versioning
numbers.


I agree with this. I also agree w/ Nick that we need versions, not just "stable/devel"

Honestly, I still havent heard a good reason not to just use mirrors for this rather than the spell. It makes sense, and it's known to work.

* Ryan & I were talking in irc and he mentioned that he thought the
sorcery script should be as simple as possible with the spell
basically being something that downloads the tarball and calls the
install script. I agree with this.

100% agree, this is all it needs to do (other than ask which you want,
devel/stable sorcery). I would like to see a short message that states you
are ONLY updating the sorcery code, not grimoire code as that seems to be the
biggest missunderstanding on the lists that users have... but this is
cosmetic.

I would argue that we should NOT have that message. Users are confused because they know the old way. Once the new way sinks in, it makes sense. And when new users join, that message would just get them confused, as they will not know it was ever done any other way. Either way, cosmetic. ;)

* 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.

No and again NO to versioning of sorcery, I think it is very handy to be able
to follow a nightly snapshot of cvs thru the 'devel' sorcery and for us
working folks that can't afford a broken machine we hang on the 'stable' one,
nice solution!

I think sorcery needs vesions. But I also think we should limit the options to devel and stable, unless the user manually edits the files.

* 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.

I agree again 100%, this is fine and the only thing that needs to hold a
version is maybe stable, but you can put this in a text message during the
install, after the user selects 'stable' he/she sees a msg of the version
he/she is getting. The cvs snapshots are known to be the most recent, maybe
broken, but newest so no versioning is needed if you ask me. KISS principles
guys....

I dunno. Sorcery is probably the closest we have to a full featured software package. I think we need versions for roadmaps, milestones, etc.. Whether we use them externally is up for debate.. and I am not sure yet.

And a nice overview of scribe (as it is now, not as it will become on the
wiki) would be greatly appreciated.... this is also a huge question mark for
most users. I get questions about "why this/that feature doesn't work but is
on wiki doc" all the time on irc....

I know. I know. I know. ;)

Bear with me on Scribe. If anyone asks, just tell them to ignore it. ;)

My top priorities are:
Constitution
Scribe
Installer

in reverse order.

Once I get the installer to a point where others can start hacking on it as well, I will sorta hand parts of it over so I can have time to work on scribe (and document it as I go)

There are a lot of parts that just dont do anything yet. Luckily its sorta like gaze.. you dont need part a to make part b work. :)

-Ryan





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page