Re: Tags
- From
- H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
- Date
- Jul 1, 2005, 21:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <42C5BB33.5010304@zytor.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050701214230.GA22003@pasky.ji.cz>
Petr Baudis wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> > I doubt that's really useful either. Rather artificial mechanisms for > protection of the namespace would have to be deployed, and again, what > would it be good for anyway? If you are tagging linux-2.m.n, you are > probably whoever you should be - David, Alan, Marcelo, Linus, or whoever > else, while if you are tagging linux-2.m.n-cki, you are likely Con > Kolivas. I don't believe there is any (or much) potential for "natural" > conflicts and if you are malicious, you will just fake the namespace; > but frequently what's interesting about the tags is not the author at > all - I would consider it confusing to have to suddenly dive to another > namespace when Linus hands maintenance of linux-2.m to someone else. > > The only significant value I can therefore see in the namespaces is > prevention of user mistakes, but I think the successful strategy here > would be just "upstream will notice", and make sure the upstream will be > noticed properly (perhaps even interactively) about any new tags it > gets. > > Ok, I admit that it boils down to me being lazy and that "it'd be more > typing!"... ;-) >
You're missing the whole point of the discussion. Right now the only thing that makes a global object store impossible is the potential for a tag conflict, either intentional or accidental.
-hpa