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 >> hand, >> 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 () Browse results 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.) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
