On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Martin Pool <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/11/27 James Westby <[email protected]>: >> On Thu Nov 26 19:49:43 -0500 2009 Martin Pool wrote: >>> Adding the owner would be a bit consistent with bzr branches, to which >>> these have some resemblence. However, I think putting the owner into >>> the branch name has been a bit mixed, because there are important >>> cases where people want to change the access rightly without changing >>> the name. Therefore on the whole I'd argue for leaving it out, and >>> having an owner field that can be changed later. >> >> The only issue with leaving it out is that the name must then be >> unique across all recipes for that package/distro, correct? >> >> I see two problems with this, firstly that if someone calls theirs >> say "official" or "poolie" then you have an issue with impersonation. >> Yes, you can check the owner by going to the page, but even those >> looking at the page might not notice. Granted, there tends to be >> a proliferation of branches named "trunk" or similar, so it is hard >> to know which is the blessed trunk from the unique name anyway. > > They can of course already register ~bzr-team and push > ~bzr-team/bzr/3.0 if they're actually trying to be malicious. I don't > think the name can ever be enough. >
I agree that such malice cannot be addressed by the name alone. >> The second issue is that I expect people will tend to informally >> namespace things by putting their nick in to the recipe name anyway. >> This isn't necesarrily an issue, but in other areas LP tends to want >> to capture this information structurally where it can. > > I agree with these, but I'm not sure the second is a problem. I think > people do tend to distinguish branches that ought to have global names > (even if they happen to be owned by someone) from those they think of > as personal. So they can make mbp-doc. Launchpad will know from the > owner field and other things who's been involved with it. > > So I could accept either one but I think it's worth having the > conversation before we introduce a new namespace. > We're having the conversation now. :) * Putting owner in the URL and conflating ownership with write permissions leads to broken URLs, which is bad. * Not having the owner in the URL disallows recipes for the same package with the same name. What other considerations are there? jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
