[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone"
From: |
Colin Walters |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone" |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:47:30 -0500 |
On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 21:37, Tom Lord wrote:
> The spirit of the "implicit mainline" idea is to answer the above open
> questions with:
>
> (a) yes
>
> (b) perhaps, but it's easier just to pick one pattern that
> most people will want to use and optimize that
That's a good summary of how I feel.
> (c) no parameters from the project maintainers -- the arch
> maintainers will set those to constants.
True. But it's worth saying that I wouldn't advocate this as a general
rule in all situations. I do think it makes sense in this situation.
> (d) so, overarch should just be some new defaults and commands
> added to arch
As much as we can, and no more :)
> I can't say that that's obviously wrong. Oftentimes, simplifying the
> problem you thought you wanted to solve leads to great things. But
> my suspician is that it's premature in this case.
Maybe; that's why I brought it up on the list :)
> There's a different (but related) slice through the mainline idea,
> too: You've seen me make analogies between the arch namespace and
> library cataloging systems (like Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress
> classifications) repeatedly.
>
> Extending that analogy: the arch namespace really just provides a
> _syntax_ for a cataloging system. It doesn't provide much of a
> semantics.
Right, that would change with a distinguished branch.
> One idea is to make "the official arch guide to namespace usage" --
> analogous to that multi-volume guide from the library of congress.
> That's the path that the "implicit mainline" hack heads down.
What other namespace issues would go into such a guide?
> Another idea is a bit more like, sigh, XML: provide a mechanism by
> which anyone can publish their own namespace-usage guide for their own
> little corner of the universe, and anyone else can use all of these
> separate guides as if they were one big one. That's the overarch
> approach and, although it's a much harder idea to fully develop, it is
> at least closer to the peer-to-peer, we're-all-equals, design of arch
> so far.
Sounds like major overkill :) At least until we can think of some other
namespace issues that would require such a thing.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Miles Bader, 2003/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Colin Walters, 2003/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Tom Lord, 2003/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone",
Colin Walters <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Tom Lord, 2003/11/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Robert Collins, 2003/11/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Colin Walters, 2003/11/09
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Robert Collins, 2003/11/09
[Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Mark A. Flacy, 2003/11/09
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] distinguished branch name, "clone", Paul Hedderly, 2003/11/09