Re: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file

On Jan 18, 2008 11:51 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:
> 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="";
>          xmlns:foaf="";
>          xmlns="";>
> [...]

What are the real benefits of DOAP (sounds like "dope," nice)? If it's
meant for machines to query against then a database would be more

> 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
> correctly.

Again, what is the use case for DOAP inside GNOME? From the first
email it sound like you only want to store RDF templates in SVN so
where does the rest of them go and what for? Contributors don't need
it, downstream doesn't need it, do maintainers? It's not like the file
contains anything non-obvious (license, programming language, SVN repo
are all things you probably already know at the point where you come
across the DOAP file).

Patryk Zawadzki
PLD Linux Distribution

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