How We Can Have Nice Things
Kay C Lan
lan.kc.macmail at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 00:39:20 EDT 2015
I'll admit I don't fully understand all the ins and outs and the full
ramifications of how many straws are being piled on the LC Teams back, but
if the problem is binary vs text may not the simple solution be to shift
some of the weight back on the contributor to make it easier for the Team,
ie instead of just supply the amended stack, actually list out the amended
handlers, the added handlers, the amended objects and the added objects.
I'm thinking some sort of Template Form similar to what the QCC uses to
A field to enter the full name of the effected script:
>The stack script of stack revscripteditor.rev
A field to enter the original hander,
A field to enter your amended handler.
>amended bits sprinkled throughout
[Makes it easy to copy and paste into a Text Editor for diff analysis]
Repeat above for as many handlers you've amended.
A field for entering Added handlers.
Repeat above for all your added handlers.
A field to enter the full name of any object you've amended
>Field 'handlerlist' of stack revscriptEditor.rev
A field to enter the original properties:
[just the relevant ones]
A field to enter the amended values
Repeat above until all amended objects are listed
A field to enter the full name of any object you've Added:
>Field 'filterHandlerList' of stack revscriptEditor.rev
A field to enter the properties of the new object which aren't default:
>Loc: 60, 490
Repeat as above for all added objects
Provide the recipe [text] for the cake, not just the cake [binary].
I guess Charles would be the one to comment on how difficult it would have
been for him to list out all the original
scripts/handlers/objects/properties he amended, along with the actual
amendments he made PLUS all the scripts/handlers/objects/properties he
added. If he considers it difficult and a deterrent to community additions
then it would certainly add weight to the comments that it is a burden for
the LC Team. If Charles considers it easy, then maybe it would help?
If the LC Team follow your recipe, but don't get the cake you sent, then
the contribution is rejected until you identify the amendments/additions
you made that were not correctly reported in your original submission.
Again placing the burden on the contributor not the LC team. In fact I
would suggest initially posting such recipes to the community:
1) so they can be checked by the community and no LC Team time is wasted.
2) because the community is sure to spot 1 or 2 improvements/enhancements
that can be added prior to submission.
3) certain Community members could be considered Quality Assurance Reps
(CQAR), and if they have built the recipe and confirmed it works, checked
the amendments/additions to confirm nothing nefarious exists, then rather
than the original author submitting the work, it's submitted by the CQAR
(Richard, Marks, Jacque, Monte...) which would reduce the amount of
checking the LC Team would need to do.
Maybe not so much a tool as you requested but a workflow.
More information about the use-livecode