Petr Baudis wrote: > > I doubt that's really useful either. Rather artificial mechanisms for > protection of the namespace would have to be deployed, and again, what > would it be good for anyway? If you are tagging linux-2.m.n, you are > probably whoever you should be - David, Alan, Marcelo, Linus, or whoever > else, while if you are tagging linux-2.m.n-cki, you are likely Con > Kolivas. I don't believe there is any (or much) potential for "natural" > conflicts and if you are malicious, you will just fake the namespace; > but frequently what's interesting about the tags is not the author at > all - I would consider it confusing to have to suddenly dive to another > namespace when Linus hands maintenance of linux-2.m to someone else. > > The only significant value I can therefore see in the namespaces is > prevention of user mistakes, but I think the successful strategy here > would be just "upstream will notice", and make sure the upstream will be > noticed properly (perhaps even interactively) about any new tags it > gets. > > Ok, I admit that it boils down to me being lazy and that "it'd be more > typing!"... ;-) > You're missing the whole point of the discussion. Right now the only thing that makes a global object store impossible is the potential for a tag conflict, either intentional or accidental. -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Sat Jul 02 07:53:59 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-07-02 07:54:01 EST