On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 20:45:37 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/03/2015 05:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Please review, comment and answer the questions in TODOs ;-). > > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:Maintainership_structure > > > > Much more sane than what we have now, thank you. > > My only question is about the name of the "subproject" element. If you > haven't read the GLEP, can you tell me whether Foo is a subproject of > Bar or vice-versa? > > > Foo > foo@gentoo.org > > > > > Bar > bar@gentoo.org > I don't see a problem with that. We have a object that has and elements -- sub-objects. Otherwise, it'd be or . This could be made a little more clear if we wrapped all subprojects around element. But then, we should also wrap members around , and maintainers around ;-) for consistency. And the last one would actually break backwards compatibility, though it'd be consistent with how we do ... > Putting the name aside, I expected the mapping to go in the other > direction by analogy with relational databases. Relational databases have technical limitation of having one value for key which does not apply here. That's why most ORMs actually focus on the opposite direction than the database itself. > This is also misleading with the current name: > > > > That looks like the subproject inherits the members of the parent > project, right? But it's the other way around: > > * optional inherit-members="" attribute whose non-empty value > indicates that subproject members are to be considered members of > the parent project as well. > > If everyone likes and wants to keep the name _sub_project, I think > _inherit_ is the wrong word to use, since children inherit from parents. What do you suggest instead? -- Best regards, Michał Górny