Seth Vidal wrote:
>> If comps ends up with a thousand programs under Games and Entertainment,
>> another thousand under Graphical Internet, etc., it's even more
>> useless than
>> having nothing in comps at all. What would be the point? On the other
>> having a thousand small comps groups is also no good.
> So we're in the same boat if we start 'tagging' packages and/or if we
> just group them (which is essentially tagging from the other direction).
> Let's take a step back. How do we group several thousand things such
> that they don't make the avg user lose his/her mind to look at them.
> do we need groups of groups? A tree hierarchy the user can drill
> through? Font-sized tags like flickr/bloggers, etc?
> I'm open to ideas, really.
When I see the group word applied to packages it's almost always a
single group per package usage. Having multiple tags per package would
allow the user to narrow their browsing like this:
tags: games 1000 entries - (action, strategy, cards, boardgame, rpg,
tags: games, strategy - 276 entries (wargame, cards, no others, rpg,
tags: games, strategy, cards - 17 entries (no others, wargame)
Only tags: games, strategy, card - 15 entries ()
font-sized tags are a good idea in this context but not applicable to
the commandline. Ordering of the possible tags to intersect with by
popularity is an approximation of this.
A tree hierarchy has good qualities compared to the comps groups that we
have now but I think that intersecting tags have most of the advantages
of a more rigid group.
Rigid groups do have the feature of growing at a more leisurely pace
whereas tags are somewhat of a free for all where more tags are usually
better. (May be important if we're trying to stuff all of the
catagorization information into repo metadata to download.)
fedora-devel-list mailing list