donenext

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by donenext 1y ago

   Thats fair. It just seems silly that a spec intended to "uniquely ID a package" supports a type that is the complete opposite of "unique". I guess another way to frame my take is should `generic` be consider a valid PURL
2. 2.▲
   by donenext 1y ago

   Can we completely eliminate generic as a type to remove this crutch?
3. 3.▲
   by donenext 1y ago

   Hot take, `generic` as a type is a crutch most tooling uses out of laziness and has significantly reduced the usefulness of PURL spec. How do we improve this?
4. 4.▲
   by donenext 1y ago

   Yes, 1000x yes
5. 5.▲
   by donenext 1y ago

   completely agree here `git` type using the namespace of your choice would be plenty to enable tools to find these packages. Even though its not "officially" supported in the spec this is what we do internally