Thank you, David!
Yes, I want an assumed name, but only for Sang Sacre. It's not my fault, really. Some evil wizard cast a mirror spell
Fred: So you don't worry that it's possible for someone to send out a biological or electronic trigger that effectively overrides your own sense of ideals and values and replaces them with an alternative coercive agenda that reduces you to a mindless meat puppet? Shopkeeper: Wow. People used to think that I was paranoid.
'Time Bomb'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Penny B. - Jan 09, 2003 6:48:32 pm PST #2730 of 10000
Nobody
§ ita § - Jan 09, 2003 10:45:37 pm PST #2731 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
My head is exploding. Bad CVS! Bad CVS!
Well, okay, what's bugging me is methodology, not the application.
We need:
- code control
- test environment
Now, CVS does the first, and we already have the second. I'm not having any joy with how to combine them both in a safe and lovely manner.
Ideas from those with expertise?
Because just having folks FTP stuff up isn't working, with the stepping on, and vanilla CVS isn't allowing for testing.
Rob - Jan 09, 2003 10:59:41 pm PST #2732 of 10000
If the problem is people overwriting changes on the test server, you could check a file into CVS that contains a list of people in line to use the test server. The top person on the list can do what they want with the server. When they're done, they take themselves off the list.
That, at least, will keep accidental stepping on.
I don't imagine two people can share the test server at the same time, at least not reliably.
§ ita § - Jan 09, 2003 11:04:36 pm PST #2733 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I don't imagine two people can share the test server at the same time, at least not reliably.
There must be a way. I don't say that because I can even halfway think of one, but because someone must be doing, it, right? A test site per coder is way too many.
Rob - Jan 09, 2003 11:09:42 pm PST #2734 of 10000
I'm hoping I can get a fake phoenix running on my Mac. That might help.
The other way would be to break up the Phoenix source into modules that we're convinced are independant. Then folks can test the modules simultaneously.
But otherwise, no, I don't think two people can be modifying and testing the same program at the same time on the same machine and not go insane.
§ ita § - Jan 09, 2003 11:12:28 pm PST #2735 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Right now, apart from the pages you see in the URL, there are class files -- user, quotes, post, thread, search, e-mail.
In theory, many changes will be happening in those, and need not overlap.
In theory.
Bleargh.
Yeah, it sounds like reserving the test site will be required.
Rob - Jan 09, 2003 11:14:44 pm PST #2736 of 10000
I'm guessing that since coding Phoenix will be a spare-time only activity for all of us, we won't tend to collide on the test server.
How CVS performance look?
§ ita § - Jan 09, 2003 11:15:45 pm PST #2737 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I was futzing with it on Buffistas.org, but I'm stuck at authentication methods. And I don't think there's any advantage to doing it there, if Karl doesn't mind hosting -- at least not to wait on me to work stuff out.
Rob - Jan 09, 2003 11:18:37 pm PST #2738 of 10000
One advantage would be being able to check out directly into the test area, as opposed to having to FTP stuff to the server.
Can you run pserver on the test server?
§ ita § - Jan 09, 2003 11:22:25 pm PST #2739 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Hmm. Don't know. How does that work client-wise?