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

On Jan 21, 2008 3:16 AM, Olav Vitters <ovitters gmail com> wrote:
> 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.

I think I'm part of the (so far) silent majority that doesn't care one
way or the other and will be glad to fill in whatever little file
helps the infrastructure team.

The last MAINTAINERS format was a mistake, whoops, let's get over it
and move on and stop bike-shedding this.  Obviously Olav et al will be
helping us stay on top of our DOAP files if we break them, and he's
doing the initial conversion for free, so what's all the fuss?

I'm sick of getting excited about having new mail only to have it be
yet another stain in this circle jerk of a thread.  :-P


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