Benjamin Mesing wrote: > > It's not so much the idea of use::developing being added to the > > vocabulary that worries me - it's the idea of having to go through > > the 7000-odd packages with devel::* or role::devel-lib tags and > > decide whether to add a use::developing tag for each one.
> I would say, that everything tagged devel::* can be implied to be > use::developing. I agree - this is exactly why there's no point adding explicit use::developing tags. > In my opinion, the devel:: facet is conceptually > located inside the use:: facet. Perhaps we get some false positives, but > I doubt it will be many. > Besides we are having this kind of problem (in a smaller scale) > everytime we introduce a new tag. We need to trust the community to fix > that tagging over time (which is really easy now, due to the very nice > web interface!). Unfortunately it's a matter of re-tagging, which nobody has any incentive to bother with. The result is inconsistent tags, which are an obstacle to searches. > > For instance, if I find a package is already tagged use::editing, > > does that mean it doesn't need to be tagged use::developing? > > I'd say yes. No you wouldn't! Look, this is you saying no: > A package should be tagged use::developing, if software > development is one of the primary use cases for the package. E.g. I > would say, that the KDE texteditor "kate" could well be tagged > use::developing, since its features set is targeted for development > (syntax highlighting, capabilities for comments and so on). kate currently has use::editing but no devel:: tags; if you're saying it should be tagged as a devel::editor, which seems plausible, go ahead and tag it, and then answer my question. -- JBR Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing) _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
