| 1 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:45:37 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 11/03/2015 05:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Please review, comment and answer the questions in TODOs ;-). |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Maintainership_structure |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Much more sane than what we have now, thank you. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My only question is about the name of the "subproject" element. If you |
| 14 |
> haven't read the GLEP, can you tell me whether Foo is a subproject of |
| 15 |
> Bar or vice-versa? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> <project> |
| 18 |
> <name>Foo</name> |
| 19 |
> <email>foo@g.o</email> |
| 20 |
> <subproject ref="bar@g.o"/> |
| 21 |
> </project> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> <project> |
| 24 |
> <name>Bar</name> |
| 25 |
> <email>bar@g.o</email> |
| 26 |
> </project> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I don't see a problem with that. We have a <project/> object that has |
| 29 |
<subproject/> and <member/> elements -- sub-objects. Otherwise, it'd be |
| 30 |
<subproject-of/> or <parent-project/>. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This could be made a little more clear if we wrapped all subprojects |
| 33 |
around <subprojects/> element. But then, we should also wrap members |
| 34 |
around <members/>, and maintainers around <maintainers/> ;-) for |
| 35 |
consistency. And the last one would actually break backwards |
| 36 |
compatibility, though it'd be consistent with how we do <use/>... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Putting the name aside, I expected the mapping to go in the other |
| 39 |
> direction by analogy with relational databases. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Relational databases have technical limitation of having one value for |
| 42 |
key which does not apply here. That's why most ORMs actually focus on |
| 43 |
the opposite direction than the database itself. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> This is also misleading with the current name: |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> <subproject inherit-members="1"/> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> That looks like the subproject inherits the members of the parent |
| 50 |
> project, right? But it's the other way around: |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> * optional inherit-members="" attribute whose non-empty value |
| 53 |
> indicates that subproject members are to be considered members of |
| 54 |
> the parent project as well. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> If everyone likes and wants to keep the name _sub_project, I think |
| 57 |
> _inherit_ is the wrong word to use, since children inherit from parents. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
What do you suggest instead? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Best regards, |
| 63 |
Michał Górny |
| 64 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives