| 1 |
Jason Stubbs posted <200512120911.53976.jstubbs@g.o>, excerpted |
| 2 |
below, on Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:11:53 +0900: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Monday 12 December 2005 09:01, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:44:00 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> | Repositories will be user-labelled. However, all that readers need be |
| 9 |
>> | concerned with is how to extract the repository name from the |
| 10 |
>> | news.unread file and how to then resolve that to a directory name, |
| 11 |
>> | regardless of how repositories are implemented. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> See, this is exactly why I'm not wanting to care about multiple repo |
| 14 |
>> details at this point. There's no specification of how they work and |
| 15 |
>> what exactly they're supposed to do, and to make matters worse the way |
| 16 |
>> you seem to think they'll be handled is a really really bad way of |
| 17 |
>> doing it. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Regardless of what you think about the current plans for multiple repository |
| 20 |
> support, the details that readers will need to know wont change. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ciaran hasn't stated, but it appears to me if I'm reading correctly |
| 23 |
between the lines, the reason he doesn't want to mess with specifying |
| 24 |
multiple repo details right now is that it's getting the cart before the |
| 25 |
horse in terms of nailing down certain areas of the multiple repo spec. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
For example, if repository-id forms a part of the path and we define path |
| 28 |
parsing now, then we are effectively defining legal characters for |
| 29 |
repository-id now. That's an entirely different glep, far out of scope and |
| 30 |
reaching into other people's territory, limiting how that might be |
| 31 |
implemented by defining a portion of the id-scope in an entirely unrelated |
| 32 |
glep. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Given how heated I've seen GLEP discussion get (and I'm not saying that's |
| 35 |
/bad/, just a fact), I really can't blame Ciaran for attempting to keep |
| 36 |
the scope of the proposal, and therefore the debate, down to exactly what |
| 37 |
he's aiming to accomplish, without ending up getting into an entirely |
| 38 |
/different/ debate about how he's limiting the future flexibility of the |
| 39 |
multiple repo implementation. Once there's a concrete proposal there to |
| 40 |
work with, then and only then, he's saying (from my viewpoint), is it |
| 41 |
appropriate for consideration in relation to the news proposal. |
| 42 |
Don't unnecessarily tie the two together, complicating life for both. Let |
| 43 |
each be argued on its merits separately, and when/if multiple repo is |
| 44 |
actually close enough to deployment that there's some actual rules to work |
| 45 |
with, /then/ worry about fixing this to match. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
If I'm incorrect, just tell me to go back in my corner and lurk some more |
| 48 |
<g>, but that's what I'm getting out of this subthread so far. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 52 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 53 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 54 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives