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
Pros:
. 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.
Cons:
. Presumes to know requirements of other repository users,
for which we have no requirements.
3. Version in directory
Cons:
. 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:
http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031112/...
http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly/20031113/...
2. Embedded in version:
http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031112/...
http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-cli/nightly-20031113/...
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" | ...
-Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Chalko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 14 November 2003 9:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
VersionInURISytnax
>
> 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
