Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Some issues

[Milan Cvetkovic]

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:32:54PM -0400, Milan Cvetkovic wrote:
>
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:47:35AM -0400, Milan Cvetkovic wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 04:03:27PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- snipped ---
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Categories, branches, and versions are not orthogonal at all and add
> > > > > > unnecessary complexity. Future features cannot differentiate between
> > > > > > them because they are used very inconsistently in existing archives.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No idea what that is supposed to mean. They're just names. Almost
> > > > > everything just wants a version specifier, and doesn't care about the
> > > > > fact that the '--'s in the string have significance.
> > > >
> > > > No, they are not just the names.
> > > >
> > > > Version must consist of digits and dots only.
> > >
> > >
> > > Relevance? To almost every tool, it's just a string that gets passed
> > > through.
> >
> > They are not orthogonal. It is important to me - a human.
>
>
> Relevance to *anything*?

Yes. I want version to be the project version rather than branch 
version. It would be usefull to me - a human. And it is relevant to me.
Most Arch archives look too disorganized because of this.

I choose to use arch in spite of this, but some people are not so tolerant.

Milan.