Didier Verna wrote: > Faré <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Although, it isn't clear yet how source-control may or may not specify >> the VCS used: should we prefix the URL with a git: or svn: or darcs: >> or some such? ASDF uses: :source-control (:git >> "git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf.git") > > Personally, I would not complicate this slot and just go for a simple > URL pointing to a VCS related web page. If you start specifying more > information there, you will end up with a big mess (which VCS, which > access backend, which access type (r/o r/w) etc.). > > That's just me of course. >
I can think of two answers to this: 1. I believe that the value of a *human-readable* piece of meta-data here should be obvious. Particularly if you get a version of a library from some source (tarball, quicklisp), that has a bug you wish to fix. It would be nice if you didn't have to track down the VCS for yourself (particularly if there are multiple possible candidates in DVCS world). But for this all we need is an arbitrary string such as "git repository git://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/asdf.git". This requires no action on the part of the ASDF developers. Note that Faré's format meets this criterion, as well. 2. It is an open question whether *machine-readable* meta-data would be useful. My previous response was directed at machine-readable meta-data. This could be either (a) something that prescribes enough of a format to ensure happily formatted information (e.g., for CL-TEST-GRID), or (b) something that would support automated access to the version control repository encoded in the system description. As I said, it's not clear that this is needed right now. My proposal would aim at this, but is probably premature.
