| 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 |
Archives