sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
- To: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>
- Cc: <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:00:38 -0500
> I think the main problem is the developers who would rather cause bugs
> and problems making a hack, rather than just accepting the fact that
> we did not properly work this out early enough (and make real features
> which support this behavior).
We will have to agree to disagree on this. I dont think /any/ developers
"would rather cause bugs and problems making a hack" - I think the
difference is that some developers would rather keep trying to truly fix the
problems causes (which honestly doesnt seem that hard to fix) instead of
just giving up to work on something else.
I understand that you need to make a decision in order to keep your team on
track. I admire that you are doing it, and working to stick to the roadmap.
Thats why I am not asking you or your team to take any more time on this
issue. I have claimed the bug that is sort of related to this, and like i
said there, i will fix it by the end of the week.
The way I understand it, the issues are twofold..
1) SORCERY_BRANCH didn't always work. Easy to fix imho.
2) The version isnt set correctly when installed. Also easy to fix, imho.
Beyond that, i will simply have to test it a LOT to make sure it works. If
there are any other issues you wish to share with me so i can correct them,
let me know. Otherwise I will stumble on them myself.
If I fail at it, I fail at it. But the only time being spent will be mine,
and this is important enough to me to spend it. If it works it works. If it
doesnt, I will admit defeat and go back to cauldron.
-Ryan
-
[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,
Dufflebunk, 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
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nathan Doss, 09/09/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.