[Gnu-arch-users] version name conventions

[Robert Anderson]

After a few years of experience in using tla I want to make an
observation about the arch version namespace that was sparked by the
most recent comments about the 3-part names being "dictatorial."

Let me try it this way:  the namespace structure, while a good idea,
doesn't go far enough to fulfill its potential in the spirit of the
"library" analogy that Tom likes to use.

Just to belabor the analogy a little:  I don't put Dewey decimals on
my personal library at home.  It's just not an appropriate way to
organize my books.  I use something simpler.

What if the namespace syntax was defined by a per-archive regexp.  The
default could be the usual arch namespace.  But I'd also like to see
an additional semantic enforcement relating to common namespace
components and version relationships (via "tag", which I also think
should be renamed to "link", to reduce severe overloading of the
term).  Currently, this is entirely unenforced.  foo--A--0 and
foo--B--0 need not be related in any way, although one might assume
that they are since they only differ by a "branch" component in the
namespace.  It's a little like being able to put an art book in the QA
section, and having no librarian to tell you you shouldn't do that.

If I have an archive of one-off test programs of a dozen lines or so
each (something I do have, actually) that I use to prove little things
to myself, this is like my home bookshelf, and I don't need a Dewey
system for it.  I'm not going to make branches or have major versions
of these things.  A simple freeform namespace is best here.  I want to
drop in a predefined namespace syntax and semantics in this archive
which is basically "freeform" and "no semantics."

I think the tla experiment in "one namespace for all", while a worthy
one, has fallen short.  We're still talking about whether branch
should come before number, or vice-versa, and people are still unhappy
with carrying around and dealing with metadata that they don't need. 
(I don't release software versions.  Do I really need to carry around
"--0" for rest of my life?)

I think there's lots of domain specific reasons for alternate
namespaces to be appropriate.  Anyway, just some thoughts.  Maybe this
will resonate with others to start a more serious discussion.

Bob