From: "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:32, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > I know I'm repeating myself, but the current forrext.xgump descriptor is
> > a gump descriptor with these things added.
>
> But it does waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much for me to be comfortable with
> and is not compatable with how I would like to do things or the way that
> maven does things (I believe). Some of my concerns would be;
>
> [1] <todo/> list should not be stored in there because it could be quite
> long and quite dynamic. For example;
>
> * Some projects use xdoclet to pull todos out of the source code (XDoclet
> is a Doclet that processes things and can be used to generate meta-data
> based on
> tags in source code and todo list generator is a standard xdoclet task)
> * Some projects use Bugzillas request for enhancement to keep track of
> todos
> * some projects keep track of it manually
>
> So keeping it in the project descriptor is not viable for those reasons. A
> possible solution would be to have
>
> <todo href="some/file.xtodo"/>
Sounds reasonable. +0
> *if* you could come with a DTD that both forrest and maven use then I
> would be +100 to include a <todo href=""/> tag but until then any such
> specification would only be forrest specific. I don't believe that mavern
has
> a todo template at this point in time. Jason would you consider using
> forrests/stylebooks todo DTD?
>
> [2] <changes/> also has similar problems with todo (some projects update
> manually, some generate from CVS logs etc). I believe maven uses a
> CVS-specific format that is basically captures each log message. So in
this
> case it is not compatable with mavens format. Personally I would prefer
you
> to both work together to create a <changes/> DTD that is revision control
> independent (I drool for subversion) and is compatable with both your
> demands. Then you could maybe reference it via
>
> <changes href="some/file.xchanges"/>
+1 While todos are not usually so many, changes are starting to concern me
too.
I think that a common changes DTD with a href like you envision is ok for
me.
It would decouple also the format from the way it's generated (CVS, by hand,
subversion).
> [3] <whoweare/> is similar to mavens developers descriptor but the problem
is
> where do you place it. Should it be included in each module? in each
project?
> in each repository? Apache wide? world wide?
Very good question. I put them in the module because CVS access is given per
module.
Could this be a sufficient reason?
We could add an attribute that references ids of the subprojects on which
the devs are more active:
<person name="Nicola Ken Barozzi"
email="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" --> do we still need this?
id="nicolaken"
projects="p-ant, r-ant, sl-ant"/>
> And I would also recomend that
> it use the users Apache account username as ID rather than BL, PD or
whatever
> as that way you can map username to things like changes gathered via cvs
log
> or from bugzilla or whatever.
big +1!
> Anyways before this can go in you really need to combine forces with
Mavern
> and get a consistent DTD. Then it may be time to consider putting them in
the
> gump descriptors.
big +1 for DTDs in descriptors!
I'm writing this new DTD right now, so I will post it here shortly with the
changes you reccomend.
> [4] Misquote the license - There is no such thing as the Apache Public
> License there is only the Apache Software License ;)
Oops...
> [5] The following seem a bit much and have no equivelent in mavern land so
> should probably be pushed into another file aswell.
> <detailed>
> <what>
> <why>
Hmmm... Since they do no harm, I prefer to keep them there, since they are
pivotal for the description of the project.
> Anywhows it mainly comes down to the fact that you and mavern do things
> differently and as yet there is no support for things like per-project
scope,
> per-module scope, per-repository scope.
>
> Scope is important because try to think how difficult it would be to
maintain
> a xgump descriptor with something like the avalon-excalibur CVS that will
end
> up with something like 25 or so projects in one module. I guess most
details
> should cascade from higher up scope but there should be some discussion on
> this.
I see your point, and find it important that this is defined.
Suggestions?
> I would also like a lot more cross-talk with maven peeps to get the format
of
> the shared data compatible with each other. I dont want to have to
completely
> redo descriptors to move between products or at least not the common parts
> between forrest/mavern projects. So get together and standardize on basic
> DTDs for things like <changes/>, <todo/>, <people/> etc and I will gladly
> start converting the projects I am in to use these aspects.
:-)
> It will be good for both forrest and mavern to work together in these
areas
> because it will feel safer to your users to know that they will only have
to
> do the work once.
Yes, and put Centipede in this too.
We can still give choice to the users without locking in equipollent but
still different descriptors.
We have a main goal: make projects have a single modern STATUS file.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
