Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] docs: document bundle URI standard

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:39:41 -0700

Derrick Stolee <[email-masked]> writes:

> How about creationToken? That communicates that we don't really care
> what the number is as long as it comes from an increasing sequence
> controlled by the bundle provider.

Is it important for the clients that this value is tied to creation
time?  I am trying to come up with a word like "serial" that makes
it clear that the values have no meaning other than that they are
always growing in one direction to suggest as a replacement, but
failing to find a good one.  The word should probably not have
any connotation that they must be consecutive, but "serial" numbers
are usually dense.

>> Another thing I noticed.  The above scheme makes it impossible to
>> have <id> that happens to be "list".  I think the variables that
>> apply to the entire list should be given two-level names, i.e.
>> 
>>       [bundle]
>> 	version = 1
>> 	mode = all
>> 	heuristic = timestamp
>>       [bundle "2022-02-09-1644442631-daily"]
>> 	uri = ...
>
> This then means that <id> can't be "version", "mode", or "heuristic",
> or any other possible key that we use in the future, right?

Left ;-).

Two-level variable names and three-level variable names live
completely in a separate namespace (there is no D/F conflict).

    [bundle]
        version = 1
    [bundle "version"]
        url = ...
        mode = ...

is perfectly legit.