Re: [Fink-devel] Fink module documentation, tests and all that icky stuff.

[Benjamin R. <ra...@be...>]

Michael G Schwern wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:58:37PM +0100, "D. Höhn" wrote:
> 
>>If you would like to continue this important work, I would be more than 
>>happy to setup a roadmap of your goals and sync them with the Fink team, 
>>being your proxy. 
> 
> Sure, I'd like to see such a roadmap to get an idea of what parts of fink
> are most critical.  I'll probably also have a look at some CVS statistics
> to see what parts of the code you guys tend to touch most often and focus
> on that.

I don't know that we need someone to manage sync'ing that kind of thing 
between just a few people; generally discussion can happen on irc 
(although policy decisions or large changes should always at least go 
here, and probably fink-core@ as well).

I do, however, think it would be great to have a roadmap just for 
keeping people appraised of what's going on in general, and hopefully 
making Fink development a bit more transparent and encourage more people 
to help.  I notice that the recent flurry of development has actually 
prompted others not on the core team to start working on Fink and I 
think that's wonderful!  Anything we can do to get the word out to the 
people that they can help make fink better is a good thing, and that's 
definitely your area of expertise, David.  =)

Traditionally, the fink code has been a black box that even the core 
team has inherited, so many of the original intentions are not known to 
us.  =)

Anything that can make it easier for us to understand and work on, much 
less others, is great.

>>As I said above, yes of course. According to some it is bitterly needed.
>>Furthermore the Dependency enhone seems to need a reqrite, yet no one is 
>>willing to touch it. Do you want to ?
> 
> Maybe after I understand fink a bit better.  However, RR pointed out that
> horrid $item->[3] stuff.  I should be able to at least convert that to a
> hash or if nothing else, $item->[NAME] to make it a little more easier to
> read.

Yeah.  Even in my tinkering, switching to constants made it so much 
easier to understand.  Moving that to a hash would be even better.

Be aware that $item->[] is being overloaded to contain deps too, so it 
will probably take something more than simply replacing stuff.  It needs 
to be done though, the current engine is working, but is so difficult to 
read, much less understand, that no one wants to work on it.

-- 
Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/
gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD  71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE
"Just try to imagine a world where e-mails are sent by your brain
before they are written, and are ready before they arrive by people
you have never even met in countries you have never even heard of!"