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

On Jan 21, 2008 9:56 AM, Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2008 6:50 AM, Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
> > On Jan 21, 2008 9:41 AM, Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm indifferent as long as this change doesn't add another extra step
> > to my release process.
> > Setting up a doap file once is not big deal, but having to update
> > version numbers in it every time I do a release would be seriously
> > annoying.
> Fortunately nobody is requiring that.  And if it ever is required, I'm
> sure it could be easily automated with another line or two in our
> makefiles.

As far as I understood, the doap files will live in their own separate module,
so the Makefiles in my module will likely not be able to automate this.
I'd expect install-module to maybe do that job.

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