[Debtags-devel] Alternative tag patch for Java and .NET

[Enrico Zini]

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 <enrico at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20051104/7eeb2ec5/attachment.pgp