On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:15:07AM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: >On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> For these reasons, in my humble opinion, choosing our software packaging >> format and guidelines (of which version numbering is but a single >> aspect) is NOT A TRIVIAL EXERCISE and is not as simple as picking an >> off-the-shelf format. (I wish that the reality were otherwise). > >I understand the points you make, but - AFAICS - they don't have much >bearing on versioning (by which I mean to say: the conventional >RPM/Deb versioning scheme works fine).
I don't care too much what names people give to activities but I care greatly about how the software that manipulates those activities is written -- in particular, about the way that it makes use of those names, both internally and in the UI. Thus, while I will likely be content with any naming convention that might be proposed, I have serious reservations about the quality of the software that will result from the _procedures_ being used to choose that naming convention. Hence my request that we perform at least basic diligence in checking that the proposed naming scheme and its intended usage in software is consistent with our largely unwritten requirements. > They do impact packaging, but... they are not *that* special either. My goal is to avoid deploying short-term hacks which complicate future work. Hacks to conventions seem particularly dangerous to me because they're the hardest things to change if you get them wrong. As I said above, I will be happy if we choose to adopt an existing naming scheme so long as that naming scheme is compatible with our requirements and use cases. We just need to demonstrate that we are aware of the consequences of our proposed scheme by checking that it doesn't paint us into a corner down the road. >> Do you require more justification? > >Ah well, I know notink of the XO so back to my cave where I try to >reach my goals reinventing the _least_ wheels. We have different resources to bring to bear on our respective tasks. >Sorry about the noise. I always (eventually) appreciate your input, even when I argue with you or cut you off too quickly for want of the patience to find out where you're coming from. Michael _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar