2008-01-21 klockan 12:54 skrev Mathias Hasselmann:
> So I understand even less, why you want us to use a file format which as
> several technical problems:
>
> - hard to read and write
> - redundant with AUTHORS file
> - redundant with Changelog, NEWS and FTP
> - no support for git or bzr
>
> You want additional information for svn-commits-list, web-sites?
I've addressed all of these questions in another mail I've just sent. See:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2008-January/msg00169.html
> You want to provide the service of hosting DOAP files? So keep
> MAINTAINERS (and AUTHORS, and whatever DOAP related information we
> already have), add some PROJECT-INFO file that lists the missing pieces
> of information, and generate the DOAP file.
This is not extensible without hacking the handling code to use this
additional/custom information. When using DOAP directly, e.g. FOAF
descriptions of people may be added directly, as well as properties from
other namespaces.
> What about new modules? First of all they have to copy boilerplate code,
> to get a valid DOAP file - very bad engineering. Second they have to lie
> at many fields, as new modules usually do not have a Website or Bugzilla
> and such yet...
Technically, none of the fields are required. However, as I understood it
Gnome policy would be to AT LEAST include maintainer information. Not that
much of a requirement, if you ask me.
mvrgr, Wouter
--
:wq mail uws xs4all nl
web http://uwstopia.nl
step into my shadow :: forty-six & 2 just ahead of me -- tool
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature