Re: msi again

[Ralph Lange <Ralph.Lange@bessy.de>]

 On 23.08.2010 05:24, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2010, Ralph Lange wrote:
> > On the MSI move: I am volunteering to move it into dbtools, keeping the
> > history.
> > (I have been reluctantly doing too many repository conversions lately,
> > and this one is actually interesting: it will require merging from an
> > unrelated repo, which probably makes "swiss army knife" git the best
> > candidate for the operation. I will create a bzr branch on LP that you
> > can merge in after 3.14.12 is out.)
> The problem with moving msi into base is that it makes it more difficult to
> apply site-specific changes. This may not be a strong argument against,
> though.

dbLoadTemplate (ioc based) is part of base, the rules for host-side 
template instantiation are in base, dbLoadTemplate (host based) used to 
be part of base, and when msi was created as a replacement, I think it 
was a wrong decision to unbundle it.
The generic functionality of msi (as well as the use cases, and 
implementing dbLoadTemplate functionality on the host as a "spec") are 
clear - I think we can provide a reasonable implementation that avoids 
the need for local patches.

The idea is to keep the MSI variable in the build system (just pointing 
to the base version as default - instead of relying on a msi binary 
being in the user's PATH), so using a site-specific version will be just 
as easy as it is now.

And - last not least: moving msi into base increases the code visibility 
and makes it easier to improve the shared version (instead of keeping 
improvements site-specific).

> BTW
>
> Please try to avoid moving discussions on tech-talk to private mailing
> "lists". If you think it gets too technical, then move the discussion to
> core-talk. There are so many advantages to using the public lists, not least
> among them that everything gets archived. It is easy to ignore threads that
> you are not interested in, but it it is hard if not impossible to follow
> something you *are* interested in (even if you do not actively participate
> in the discussion) if the stuff is discussed only in a private circle.

No "lists" involved here. In this case core-talk would have been 
appropriate for following-up, true.

Any ideas how to make phone calls and discussions on the hallway public 
and archived? ;-)

Cheers,
Ralph