1 |
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 |
4 |
> Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>> Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not |
7 |
>> mix unrelated things. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already |
10 |
> established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are anyway. |
11 |
|
12 |
I too feel that tags should be distinct from sets, for a bunch of reasons. |
13 |
|
14 |
Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the |
15 |
repository. While I'm fine with having tags in the repository also, |
16 |
there is talk about giving users ways of supplying them as well. |
17 |
|
18 |
Sets are generally used to tell the package manager to do something |
19 |
with a lot of packages at once. I'm not sure there is much of a need |
20 |
to do this with tags, at least not in most of the use cases that have |
21 |
been suggested. |
22 |
|
23 |
Here is how I see tags being used: |
24 |
|
25 |
1. I want a WYSIWYG html editor. |
26 |
2. I search for tags like "editor" and "html" and "WYSIWYG" and maybe |
27 |
even "text." |
28 |
3. I check out descriptions and homepages or whatever for a few |
29 |
likely candidates, and install one or maybe two. |
30 |
|
31 |
What I doubt I'd ever do is just install any package that has anything |
32 |
to do with text/html editing. When you search google you care about |
33 |
the top 5-10 - not the whole set of results. |
34 |
|
35 |
Maybe if we define multiple namespaces for tags we could move to using |
36 |
tags as dependencies or whatever, and those tags would be distinct and |
37 |
much more carefully defined and controlled. However, I think this is |
38 |
more far-out and not the immediate goal. |
39 |
|
40 |
Sets might work, but they seem a bit like a hack... |
41 |
|
42 |
Rich |