Re: [Gnu-arch-users] The C-B-V-R part of a fully qualified name

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:15:10AM -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> > One of the xtla developers was asking in #arch about what the best
> > name for the category--branch--version--revision part of a fully
> > qualified name (archive/c-b-v-r).  I recommended "fully qualified
> > revision" or "non-fully qualified name", but I thought I'd ping the
> > mailing list.
> 
> Last year I asked Tom on the list to label everything. He came through. 
> 
> I don't remember exactly what he said, but I've been using the following
> naming conventions without any apparent confusion when talking to others:

> arch--ive  : archive
> c          : category
> c--b       : package
> c--b--v    : version
> c--b--v--r : revision

I habitually append spec(ifier) to these, as the names are distinct
from the things, especially in code. So $revspec would be the name,
while $revision would be the object.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature