| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:23:58 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Because it isn't... Are set names atoms? Are package names without an |
| 6 |
>> associated category atoms? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Sets /are/ still dependency specifications, in that reading, just like |
| 9 |
> || ( ) groups are dependency specifications, and lists of atoms are dependency specifications. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Hence, this is an example of in my mind why "atom" is a *better* descriptor than "dependency specification" |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Because it rules out sets and all the other shenanigans. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However, in this case why would we want to rule out sets, "and all the |
| 16 |
other shenanigans?" We've already established that a single stable |
| 17 |
request bug can apply to multiple package-versions, so why not allow |
| 18 |
full dependency specifications? If there is a set that describes what |
| 19 |
needs to be stabilized in an atomic operation, then what is the value |
| 20 |
in breaking it down into a million separate =-only atoms? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If the process becomes further aided by automated tools then using the |
| 23 |
same dependency specifications as PMS/etc would allow the same code to |
| 24 |
be used to identify candidate PVs to stabilize. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Of course in the most typical case you're stabilizing exactly one PV, |
| 27 |
but I'm not sure we need to limit the syntax simply because that is |
| 28 |
all that is required in the most common case. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives