This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

["Olav Vitters" <ovitters gmail com>]

On Jan 18, 2008 9:49 AM, Olav Vitters <ovitters gmail com> wrote:
> Summary: I'd like replace the MAINTAINERS requirement by doap files.


> I have a partial script that I want to expand to include as much info
> as I can possibly can add automatically (everything until the 'and others'
> above).

Just highlighting the parts that have been missed. I'd appreciate, but
it is *not at all required* to do any work after the script changes
the format from MAINTAINERS to doap. The field that I *require* is the
maintainer part (again: will be converted). All the other fields are
extra's. Nice to have, really appreciated if provided, but not
required. Of course, as I'll make more and more use of the doap files
in the infrastructure you'll soon notice that somewhere in the future
you'll need to change the doap files to get something working (instead
of whatever way it is used now -- e.g. sending an email to
gnome-sysadmin@). Short example: I'd like the svn-commits-list to set
the reply-to to the mailing list of that module. I'll make the script
which would do this. I'll convert any existing config info and add it
to the doap files. Another example: if I make something like
projects.apache.org. You as a maintainer notice that the info is very
incomplete (lacking mailing lists), then you'll have to edit the doap
file.

The script will fill in a lot of fields, as explained in my initial
email. Any info that could be fetched from somewhere will be included
/ updated automatically. In practice I don't think you'll notice on
the short term.

I know changing this part of the infrastructure (maintainers vs doap)
for the second time is not ideal. However, some things are just needed
to have a better infrastructure. E.g. Mango would not work without
knowing the maintainers in some machine parseable way.

Regards,
Olav