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 1O90aO-00071W-Tw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 03 May 2010 18:41:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B23E0E07DB; Mon, 3 May 2010 18:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B28E0683 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 18:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (e179023228.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.179.23.228]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C011B40BF; Mon, 3 May 2010 18:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BDF18C3.1070507@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 20:41:07 +0200 From: Sebastian Pipping User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100419 Thunderbird/3.0.4 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: Jan Hauke Rahm Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project References: <20100502223213.GD29226@nibiru.local> In-Reply-To: <20100502223213.GD29226@nibiru.local> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 98fa2d70-f161-4899-bdc3-c7e9f5357d76 X-Archives-Hash: 3becd3ef197fa18ee4500e182d7da2ac hello enrico, interesting concept. i'd like to comment on a few details: - licensing seems not be addressed, yet. licensing can kill everything, it needs consideration. - branch and tag namespaces as currently defined have a few problems: - versioning: - the A.B.C.D scheme won't be fun to gentoo, both due to no-letters-in-here and because of no-pre-releases. while at that keeping pre-releases does not seem helpful to me. - vendor concept: - uppercase vendor names look rather odd, especially with project names in lowercase. - having the vendor first makes no sense to me. a "package.vendor.subbranch" keeps all zlibs together, instead of all gentoo stuff. if the project is about packages, that makes more sense to me. - renaming the concept to "downstream" would make it fit better. gentoo is not a vendor to me. - with one git repo used for many packages people will need to know how to clone single branches only. most git users probably won't, you will need to teach them. the PDF seems a good place to do that. hope to see you on linuxtag berlin 2010, best, sebastian