[r-t] Time to vote?
dfm at ringing.org
Tue Oct 21 18:30:11 UTC 2014
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> the data is also fully static and needs no
> ongoing maintenance. So even if allowing rotations increased the number of
> records in the Collections, this seems of little concern. I appreciate
> that someone has to enter each new row, but this is limited by the number
> of ringers there are to ring new things.
In fact, the fewer restrictions on what is allowed, the _easier_ it is
to maintain such databases. There have been cases in the past where
months (maybe even years?) after something was entered it has been
detected to have been not quite legal, and has had to be renamed,
redefined, or otherwise fiddled about.
(In fact, such changes are giving me personal, minor fits 'cause my
method related software on ringing.org doesn't deal properly with such
amendments to the method collections -- I hope to completely change
the way I suck down that data Real Soon Now to fix it, but haven't
quite had the time to deal with it yet.)
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"The problem with being consistent is that there are lots of ways to
be consistent, and they're all inconsistent with each other."
-- Larry Wall, the Perl 6 mailing list
More information about the ringing-theory