sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
- To: Ryan Abrams <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
- Cc: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 21:08:14 -0700
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 09:52:39PM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> Honestly, I don't buy the version bug argument for doing this. The
> version of sorcery that is installed should /not/ be defined by the
> spell.
Well, sorry to break it to you Ryan, but that /is/ the way version
is defined in spells. I've never really liked it (often spells break
simply because the version needs to be bumped). But that is the way it
is right now.
> Thats sort of the point. Sorcery should have a hardcoded version
> variable, which it uses to judge what is installed. Thus there is no
> chance of the version being confused. whatever is installed is
> installed.
I don't know what you mean really, but the VERSION variable is
in the DETAILS file, that is what is used when adding an entry in
the installed packages file for the spell. Everything else uses
that value.
> I realize that normally spells define versions. This is not a case
> where that should happens. I think we can justify the exception for
> sorcery.
I do think things should change, I do not think we can justify the
exception for only sorcery. In which case it wouldn't be an exception
but rather a form of spell. Many spells could benefit from the ability
to track different branches of the same application. (Take mozilla
for instance).
I absolutely do not agree with "making an exception" for sorcery and
hacking the code to do things differently for this one single spell.
It's messy, and could cause lots of problems (which we've already
experienced from this so far).
> I haven't yet seen a good explanation as to why the various solutions
> that have been suggested wont work. so, to learn, i will put my
> projects on hold, go back, and try them. I still think this is a
> relatively easy thing to do. I will likely be proven wrong when i try
> to do it. But i am gonna give it a go anyway. Cause i am stubborn like
> that, and honestly, the value of a single sorcery spell makes it worth
> the attempt.
Go for it Ryan, but please don't over-write my work until your method
has been proven to work.
I also think you need to clarify what you mean by "version" you are
using it interchangeable between VERSION (i.e. 0.8.1) and BRANCH
(i.e. stable/devel). See bug #917 also.
--
Nick Jennings
Sorcery Team Lead
-
[SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/08/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/08/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/08/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Seth Woolley, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Dufflebunk, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Nick Jennings, 09/08/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/08/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.