Hello, I'd like discussions about the vocabulary to either end with an "it is ok as it is" or with a commit.
I propose this: +Tag: langdevel::c-sharp +Description: C# Development +Tag: devel::dotnet or devel::cli-platform +Description: .NET Development (or whatever other trademark-free name) and after I send this mail I'll write the mono people (in Cc here) asking what they think is best. This is the reasoning: In this thread there's two suggested patches: [Torsten's patch] +Tag: devel::arch:cli +Implies: devel +Description: Tools and libraries for development with .NET +Tag: langdevel::c-sharp +Description: C# Development [Seo's patch] +Tag: langdevel::dotnet +Description: .NET Development + Tools and libraries for languages running on .NET platform. + This includes C# language. Tag: langdevel::java Description: Java Development + Tools and libraries for languages running on Java platform. + This includes languages other than Java, like Nice. And since we have 'made-of::lang:c-sharp' it makes sense to also add 'langdevel::c-sharp'. So I would at least do this: +Tag: langdevel::c-sharp +Description: C# Development I do agree with Seo that we're not in a hurry for a JVM tag and that nice and jython fit better in langdevel::java. Even if they are different languages, they are still as strongly related to java: nice is described as "Extension of Java", and jython as "Python seamlessly integrated with Java", so I'd just categorize nice as langdevel::java and jython as both langdevel::python and langdevel::java. Then it comes the .NET issue. From what I understood in the previous discussions, while JVM is mainly about Java, one can mess with .NET without knowing anything of C#, and C# is just one language among many in that world. Seo proposes langdevel::dotnet, but langdevel::c-sharp kind of kicks it away from langdevel. I think this isn't too bad, as .NET isn't a language and so would better fit in devel. devel::dotnet would be the first idea, but Torsten mentioned trademark issues; this led to devel::cli, but that is ambiguous. I proposed an 'arch' subgroup to solve the ambiguity, but I now think that it would be an abuse to create a subgroup just to make cli less ambiguous. How about solving the ambiguity without creating a subgroup. Say, if devel::dotnet has trademark issues, how about devel::cli-platform? I've tried to ask about the .NET name in a couple of #mono IRC channels, but with little luck. After I send this mail I'll mail the mono mailing list (in Cc here) to ask for more clues. Depending on what comes out, I'd go with either devel::dotnet or something like devel::cli-platform. If later on more virtual architectures take off (there was PVM as well?), we can always spawn a devel::arch or devel::platform and move things there. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
