Re: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file

On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 11:33 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
> > While MAINTAINERS is good, there would be more data usable for more
> > things (Olav already gave some examples). So just saying "no, it looks
> > like horrible bloat" is not really convincing.
> If the file you shall maintain looks like a large binary blob, and the
> file Olav linked looked like that, this is a valid argument. I
> absolutely do not want to edit unreadable, nearly binary looking XML
> files.

is this "binary looking"?

<Project xmlns:rdf="";


  <shortdesc xml:lang="en">
    Clutter is an OpenGL based interface library

  <!-- long description -->
  <description xml:lang="en">...</description>

  <homepage rdf:resource=""; />
  <download-page rdf:resource=""; />
  <license rdf:resource=""; />
  <bug-database rdf:resource=""/>
  <mailing-list rdf:resource="mailto:clutter+subscribe o-hand com" />


      <browse rdf:resource=""/>
      <location rdf:resource=""/>


if I'd say something about DOAP is that sometimes is overly verbose; but
it's quite descriptive and easy to parse/write, even by humans. most of
this data is not even meant to be changed often: the only sections that
changes regularly is the releases one - and that would be automagically
updated by the install-module script if I understood Olav's mail


Emmanuele Bassi,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]