> Is there any consensus out there that the
> repository URI proposals are the right/wrong way to go?
I have to believe it is close. I think folks need to add any issues they
have here to TODOs
If we can't agree on some we need to vote, I guess. We need to set a
deadline, get agreement (or what we can all live with) and move on.
Q: I missed a conclusion, did 'binaries'/'binary' get decided?
> The only sticking point I'm aware of at the moment, is
> the product-specifier part of the URI, i.e,
I hate to set this backwards, I know folks have been trying to whittle
things down to a conclusion, but I think that has failed so far.
I would like to change the name of product-specified (back?) to
'group-specifier'. I think that concepts like 'sub-project' are totally
orthogonal to a artefacts repository, and how folks structure things like
that is not something we ought attempt to replicate. There are other
groupings we aren't allowing in, so why allow this one? I think that 'group'
becomes a namespace, and that products within that group (e.g. sub-projects)
can't uniquely name their artefacts with the group. That is all we need.
Anything else is distraction/overkill.
As such, I'd say group-specifier=pchar* (i.e. no '/' in there, so it is
> I'm attaching a sample repository structure for .
> A sample for  can be found here:
> If someone with a public webspace can extract them both (Adam?),
> that would be great.
I'll read & try to find time today.