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

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:

> 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

step into my shadow :: forty-six & 2 just ahead of me                -- tool

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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