Mailing-List: contact repository-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: repository@apache.org
Reply-To: <tma@netspace.net.au>
From: "Tim Anderson" <tma@netspace.net.au>
To: <repository@apache.org>
Subject: RE: [proposal] URI Syntax - v0.2
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:27:19 +1100
Message-ID: <AHEMLCHGJOKOCPPFEOIHEEKAHJAA.tma@netspace.net.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPGEKNFFAB.noel@devtech.com>
Importance: Normal

> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
>
> > My input here is primarily based on writting Ruper
>
> > You don't have to like the tool, I'm not trying to push the
> implementation
>
> I've never even seen the thing, and you are a priori assuming that I don't
> like it?
>
> > It allows you to query what is there, query and capture "oldest
> resources"
> > [and do a delete/clean], and download newest, etc.
>
> How does it know what OLDEST means?  I see that Tim is trying to add some
> more structure, so maybe he's thinking that we can restrict the
> URI space so
> that a restricted notion of version assures an automatable concept of
> succession.
>

The common build version specifier proposal does add structure to
the version, but doesn't enable tools to determine if one version
is older or newer than another.

A tool could reasonably assume that version "1.0" < "2.0" but this is
only valid for projects which follow numeric versions.
For those projects which love codename versions (e.g, "chicago", "delta"),
no assumptions can be made.

-Tim