From: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:52:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Tags
Message-ID: <42C5BB33.5010304@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050701214230.GA22003@pasky.ji.cz>

Petr Baudis wrote:
> 
> 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