I have a few comments on the content of that page:

1. Not sure why the discussion and the proposals are 
   separate, given the partial duplication of pros 
   and cons for each.
   Would prefer to see these merged.

2. Version be a mandatory component of artifact filename
  . Artifacts become identifiable when *downloaded* from the repository.
  . This is not compatible with the current ASF scheme.
    Neither maven, nor dist require version in the artifact filename.

  . Presumes to know requirements of other repository users,
    for which we have no requirements.

3. Version in directory
  . I don't see how the need for a 'latest' symbolic link is a
    con. There is no uniform way at ASF at the moment to indicate
    the latest version.
  . Scheme not currently used by ASF.

4. There has been no discussion on how to cope with nightly or snapshot
   builds, which could change the version syntax. E.g:
   1. Subdir per build:

   2. Embedded in version:

   I'm leaning towards the former, as browsing is simpler.
   OTOH, this then leads to the possibility of "nightly",
   "snapshot", "release" etc being mandatory in product-specifier:
   product-specifier = organisation "/" project "/" rtype "/" version
   rtype = "nightly" | "snapshot" | "release" | ...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Where is version in UIR Syntax
> Current count.
> 2 For version dir with optional version on artifact name.
> 3 for version dir and versioned artifact name.
> Make sure you voice your opinion.
> Nick Chalko wrote:
> > Lets see where we stand on the version.
> > Please go to 
> > 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/WhereIs
> and vote for the Proposal you prefer.
> Add pro's and con's as you see fit.
> Lets see how close we are to a consensus so wee can move on to other 
> parts of the URISyntax.
> R,
> Nick

Reply via email to