From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QbGS9-0002Nd-JC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:22:33 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ED1E1C0DB; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:22:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com (mail-fx0-f52.google.com [209.85.161.52]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3CC1C059 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so2053545fxd.11 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:21:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=T07XJ56Cefccwa+nBj+mJr6JgkVDsEIRVQXFQqYeU+Y=; b=pG6+qQk1gwEPWO/bXRPQJKPjXfI2kQygbgL0jp5vDREu6CU0FRzy8NO5RlKVYd3Zyu d3ODOheFBv3yVoWWt/lHWgiEI4ovqd0FHyxO2FvHdWN0Ktmv5J1UTK4i3SQCjjZx5Wwj +kYWZf+kiz7CRkxyqH9AlWDzMVVxi14namPZM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :disposition-notification-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=V0NaBW0mlpZbsd3+xxDaQKH49d3wNLLfPkVwO5LiphbGF86DtOt4YVczXQMgSVuEON AvwjeFEwj5wL07iacNMb6uV16nTPVvwpV9eprh7xBMH9fqWMHiHxyN4eQvrKPANN0ZI9 8filYuny5jILc9SuAQF5gpROs1SZiuPPWjpu4= Received: by 10.223.81.80 with SMTP id w16mr9397152fak.65.1309198918480; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lebrodyl.localnet (89-78-62-193.dynamic.chello.pl [89.78.62.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m26sm3701229fab.10.2011.06.27.11.21.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:21:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Maciej Mrozowski To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:21:29 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-gentoo-r6; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> <201106261712.27665.reavertm@gmail.com> <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1668086.kANaKb6oyL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201106272021.29883.reavertm@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a485444b310e5da8da41a38f33cc17ba --nextPart1668086.kANaKb6oyL Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Monday 27 of June 2011 07:49:24 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > > On Sunday 26 of June 2011 09:02:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > Here's a completely different way of doing tags: > > As far as sets are concerned, how about PROPERTIES=3Dset? > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D272488 > > It's been proposed years ago. Is there a need to reinvent sets format > > every time it's bought up? > The problems with PROPERTIES=3Dset remain exactly the same as they were > when it was first proposed. Which is? No, "been there, done that, won't work" is not sufficient. Please elaborate. > > I see major disadvantage with this approach. It's painful to maintain. > > Imagine hundreds of different tags, with each package having at least > > two tags. You certainly don't expect anyone to be able to maintain > > that. > Uh, I don't see how that's in any way difficult to maintain. No, it's not difficult, it's pain in ass to keep a hundred files with a few= =20 thousands lines each up2date with tree changes (pkgmove, cvs remove). Yes, = it=20 could be automated by some crafty cvs hook on server. However cvs hooks sho= uld=20 be the last resort and not a tool to deal with consequences of broken desig= n. > > Tag is a property or attribute of package > That one's highly debatable. It's not debatable for those familiar with object oriented design concept. It may be debatable for database designers what's the best way to implement= =20 many to many association because they have means to auto-update referenced= =20 keys - we don't have those means so proposal to "move tags to separate tabl= e"=20 isn't practical. > > PROPERTIES=3Dset have the same advantages - they can also be pulled > > within dependency tree by other packages. > Yes, but PROPERTIES=3Dset has all of the problems it had when it was > first proposed, and is the wrong way to implement sets. > > > Disadvantages: doesn't use some horribly convoluted system of XML, > > > wikis and web 2.0. > > Using already proven technologies and tools is barely disadvantage. I > > think last thing we need is yet another obscure format nothing widely > > usable understands. > Good, so you'll be happy going with what Unix has been using for > decades then. Indeed, with sets in bash (ebuild) format. > > Sets concept is completely orthogonal to tags concept, please do not > > mix unrelated things. > Depends upon what you think the "tags concept" is. We've already > established that everyone has a different idea of what tags are anyway. I don't know what's everyone's idea behind the tag, I refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata) =2D-=20 regards MM --nextPart1668086.kANaKb6oyL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk4IyikACgkQFuHa/bHpVdtg7ACeKvXlwMw7wqUfs4rlqxoPhoZm ZvYAn3M/NNHDkgbC9zWLYS0dUll+/dfJ =Pm2n -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1668086.kANaKb6oyL--