From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907D21391DB for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B3D5E0B50; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:23:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5175FE0A41 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:23:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id im17so4679860vcb.23 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=EeMNKIXUWSz5k+wLOXPUp6+tfp/uHR8FoaR7SY68YRc=; b=V3R4NxByMIZ2bdOXQvdtaugqHvJ97YTEXjXVlP3wwXX15nNTAORzYl8tgiJeN4nEW9 W6iQak1J6wQ3X67LyyC10wZs2iQ4MnIeB9YejWt8X9aNMCVAuaCPwmNXsl/XqoTveE1b 19UJJ7csvjB35XBm4j57VB2EFGDVz3g42Ce1H/CH3MtpBEMjoO4Lag45NIPrNkKCEEfA NeubzFYsuOn4liyuHeBu3SHMhjpG1IcbFbBBoEx+wY4dLaXBgrzUlSn363JHhawrW47L L5J33ACdrAX+NdJiNp/rNN13b9cEXeK3410nWuLn4j01TN65+gXxMnBpsYLrD1Amgfx2 rN/w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlJwxiKOwpkjZmsdmXwDHwjhVHtvcs6G6hQ0VWjIipUoCsGJZfmCYczGAQDXpYzUfu3wjPq 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 X-Received: by 10.220.12.66 with SMTP id w2mr1866387vcw.15.1395598998454; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com Received: by 10.220.59.71 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [173.8.165.226] In-Reply-To: <20140323104511.7552bf1c@gentoo.org> References: <532E2136.4050604@gentoo.org> <20140323104511.7552bf1c@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:23:18 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cdmSbUfwmUTIHZpahuecA7lR_7w Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags From: Alec Warner To: Gentoo Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c315008d855504f54a36bd X-Archives-Salt: 15d08593-e137-4eeb-b1f3-2330a0d694ce X-Archives-Hash: f03d0422fa5653e02837d5f857a18000 --001a11c315008d855504f54a36bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 +0000 > hasufell wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > Alec Warner: > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags > > > > > > Object or forever hold your peace. > > > > > > Or argue for 100 posts, either way. > > > > Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this > > only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least > > more common ones. > > By aggregating a global list of tag names; that way, when you tag a > package you can look for tags on the global list that apply to it, and > if it happens two different ways to name something were brought up you > can also discuss it with one another. I don't think the inconsistency > would become of a size to be concerned about; but yes, at the very > least we need to watch out in the beginning to not let it happen... > > Though, choosing the right tag naming early on might be a need for > this to succeed; maybe we can brainstorm some examples of how packages > would be tagged, to get an idea about it. > This is basically the same problem with USE flags. Personally I also dislike global USE flags on multiple levels, so I'm not entirely interested in tag consistency. That being said, I wouldn't object to such a feature very strongly. I don't consider it a blocker to GLEP adoption, merely a concern that we can address later. -A > > -- > With kind regards, > > Tom Wijsman (TomWij) > Gentoo Developer > > E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org > GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D > GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D > > --001a11c315008d855504f54a36bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org= > wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Alec Warner:
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> >
> > Object or forever hold your peace.
> >
> > Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
>
> Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in th= ere? I mean... this
> only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least=
> more common ones.

By aggregating a global list of tag names; that way, when you tag a package you can look for tags on the global list that apply to it, and
if it happens two different ways to name something were brought up you
can also discuss it with one another. I don't think the inconsistency would become of a size to be concerned about; but yes, at the very
least we need to watch out in the beginning to not let it happen...

Though, choosing the right tag naming early on might be a need for
this to succeed; maybe we can brainstorm some examples of how packages
would be tagged, to get an idea about it.

This is basically the same problem with USE flags. Personally I also dis= like global USE flags on multiple levels, so I'm not entirely intereste= d in tag consistency. That being said, I wouldn't object to such a feat= ure very strongly. I don't consider it a blocker to GLEP adoption, mere= ly a concern that we can address later.

-A=C2=A0

--
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address =C2=A0: TomWij@gentoo.o= rg
GPG Public Key =C2=A0: 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 =C2=A0ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

--001a11c315008d855504f54a36bd--