sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Nick Jennings <nkj AT namodn.com>
- Cc: Ryan Abrams <rabrams AT sourcemage.org>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells
- Date: 09 Sep 2002 15:46:08 -0400
Nick you are team lead. In this matter, I will agree with whatever you
decide.
On Mon, 2002-09-09 at 14:58, Nick Jennings wrote:
> 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
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92B5D3F1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[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
- Re: [SM-Sorcery]sorcery: stable/devel spells, Nick Jennings, 09/09/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.