New Comps Groups

[Jeremy Katz]

On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 14:27 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On 11/27/06, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Christopher Stone (chris.stone at gmail.com) said:
> > > If you ask what good it provides, then I have to ask what harm would
> > > it cause?
> >
> > That's not how good engineering is done, generally - it's based
> > on 'Why?', not 'Why not?' Any bit of new code:
> >
> > 1) can add bugs
> > 2) adds a maintenance load
> > 3) adds complexity
> >
> > The idea is to figure out the scenarios and personas you're trying
> > to design for, and then figure out how to meet those needs.
> >
> > How does a checkbox list of 589 packages (roughly the number of
> > perl-* packages) make someone's life easier? Is this better done
> > via searching for 'perl' in the package search interface, for example?
> 
> I would say no.  Take for example python packages.  Some are called
> python-* some are called py* some are called Py* some are called *py,
> etc.

Yet for all of them, you can just as well do the search for python and
find 99% of them since they'll say that they're a python module in their
description or summary.  And what's "better" about searching through a
long list via browse than search?  I say search is better as you can add
_other_ qualifiers.

Jeremy