sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Seth Woolley <seth AT tautology.org>
- To: sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 00:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Nick Jennings wrote:
<<snip>>
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 09:52:39PM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
<<snip>>
> > 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 am totally with you on this one, Nick. In fact, there are plenty of CVS
spells and nightly-build spells that would do well to have this.
httpd-dev, for instance, does CVS downloads (BTW, it needs to be updated
to use url_cvs library instead of hard-coding it in the BUILD file).
It would be nice if it would just update on sorcery update without
requiring a version bump or forced redownload.
Just wanted to reiterate Nick's point on generalizing tracking
and versioning.
I love SMGL, and it needs to be even better than it is now.
Seth
>
> 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).
<<snip>>
> --
> 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, 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, 09/08/2002
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells,
Ryan Abrams, 09/08/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.