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 1QbIMT-0004m3-28 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:24:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96EE11C131; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37481C0CA for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyh22 with SMTP id 22so2178133wyh.40 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:23:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=noBr0JwBcIFkec3RYdvIgzEMjMVm5jzU8cOu3+cNzW0=; b=BAUYaVblLLbM44h/+a26zqOAa4MOEJFZJw4o5l+UMtnAnbvgviFZO0omKa3thLKADF RIvK1/4ha2sdXTkf7IaAnFpaEicmsktkDPa6UTuZ6hG99H+GbI6TgDzns6IFgZLaFEjj r81KIgaLqtxuUXxnLcYTjsiUXk6QqukaC0bGI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=dIOcFANqABrdUuBt0KZQO2P9acITFXd5I5fuUKRkvGrt9nJUqXSxf0ZEpckwEvltJM UPN0G/ek+S264xeLRJi2g+TjWS+O26Bj44NhvRVV1cpcb8O7jbZa6dKFdsm4VQRxrl5h 9EV2eEROL1taiej6Ck78cYJke7DzelrwjL5qs= 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 Received: by 10.227.200.3 with SMTP id eu3mr5823595wbb.94.1309206234845; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.227.157.80 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:23:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> References: <20110626080257.12d523ef@googlemail.com> <201106261712.27665.reavertm@gmail.com> <20110627064924.499c488c@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:23:54 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: yCgX3cDJ7TpMyAapk60mDdJIOso Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are tags just sets? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 585f4111b8df457cb86ec769e353a392 On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:12:27 +0200 > Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > >> 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 too feel that tags should be distinct from sets, for a bunch of reasons. Sets should really be something carefully controlled by the repository. While I'm fine with having tags in the repository also, there is talk about giving users ways of supplying them as well. Sets are generally used to tell the package manager to do something with a lot of packages at once. I'm not sure there is much of a need to do this with tags, at least not in most of the use cases that have been suggested. Here is how I see tags being used: 1. I want a WYSIWYG html editor. 2. I search for tags like "editor" and "html" and "WYSIWYG" and maybe even "text." 3. I check out descriptions and homepages or whatever for a few likely candidates, and install one or maybe two. What I doubt I'd ever do is just install any package that has anything to do with text/html editing. When you search google you care about the top 5-10 - not the whole set of results. Maybe if we define multiple namespaces for tags we could move to using tags as dependencies or whatever, and those tags would be distinct and much more carefully defined and controlled. However, I think this is more far-out and not the immediate goal. Sets might work, but they seem a bit like a hack... Rich