Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-sorcery - Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells

sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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 14:01:33 -0500

Of course you have power to choose. If you reject it, I will just refine it
based on the reasons you give until it fits the way it should.

I designed the teams.. the least I can do is play by my own rules.





At least until they piss me off. ;P

-Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Jennings" <nkj AT namodn.com>
To: "Ryan Abrams" <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>
Cc: <sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells


> Forgot to say that I'm done arguing about it (no hard feelings), and will
> eagerly await to see what solution you come up with Ryan. I will exercise
> my power as Sorcery Team lead (if I have any? :) and reserve the right to
> reject it if I think it could cause more bad than good.
>
> My team members will have their say as well.
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:42:56AM -0700, Nick Jennings wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 01:00:38PM -0500, Ryan Abrams wrote:
> > > > 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 agree that no developers would rather cause bugs and problems, that
> > was a bit extreme. However, I think you trying to say your methods
> > (as described below) are "truly fixing the problem" is ridiculous.
> >
> > See below.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Great, so you patch the hacked up sorcery spell, fix the symptoms that
> > have occured, and pat yourself on the back. You haven't truly fixed
> > anything, and what you have done is certainly not something wich would
> > be transferable to any other spell (unless you want to further include
> > grimoire variables, and settings in the sorcery config - which is
> > already going overboard).
> >
> > Unless a new grimoire feature for spells which want to provide
different
> > branches of the same app. is implemented, you are not truly fixing the
> > problem. I have other things to work on which fix problems that cannot
> > be satisfied in any other way (splitting sorcery fixes the problem,
plain
> > and simple) so feel free to own it. If you can't truly fix the problem,
> > then I wont accept the hack Ryan. I don't think it's worth it by any
> > means. It's just two stupid spells! who cares that much to where they
> > are willing to accept strange bugs, and behavior unlike any other spell
> > in the grimoire!? It's not *that* cool of a feature.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Jennings
> > Sorcery Team Lead
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Sorcery mailing list
> > SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
> >
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Sorcery mailing list
> SM-Sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-sorcery
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page