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: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2008-January/msg00169.html > 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 web http://uwstopia.nl step into my shadow :: forty-six & 2 just ahead of me -- tool
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature