| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 03:02, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Here's a completely different way of doing tags: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
You know, that's not a bad way of going about it. Truth be told, I |
| 6 |
had sort of forgotten sets exists because they're a bit cumbersome at |
| 7 |
the moment. But it's cheap and dead simple and gets us our 90% |
| 8 |
immediately. Actually, it gets 100%, even, if you can include a set |
| 9 |
as part of another set (implication) and symlinks function as aliases. |
| 10 |
Very clever; I like it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> where eapi has to be on the first line. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
Looks fine but just to be clear, why is having the eapi necessary? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Second, make a bunch of sets named kde-tag, editors-tag, xml-tag, |
| 17 |
> monkeys-tag etc. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Don't even need the "-tag" part, really. But yes, a couple hundred |
| 20 |
sets are in order. And some tool-glue. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, |
| 23 |
> wikis and web 2.0. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
That's not a disadvantage at all. Thank you for noticing the third path. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
While I still don't really believe categories to be necessary, this |
| 28 |
will be a fine intermediate step. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
Wyatt |
Archives