On Jan 18, 2008 11:51 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 11:33 +0100, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: > > > While MAINTAINERS is good, there would be more data usable for more > > > things (Olav already gave some examples). So just saying "no, it looks > > > like horrible bloat" is not really convincing. > > If the file you shall maintain looks like a large binary blob, and the > > file Olav linked looked like that, this is a valid argument. I > > absolutely do not want to edit unreadable, nearly binary looking XML > > files. > is this "binary looking"? > > <Project xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; > xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"; > xmlns="http://usefulinc.com/ns/doap#";> > [...]
What are the real benefits of DOAP (sounds like "dope," nice)? If it's meant for machines to query against then a database would be more useful. > if I'd say something about DOAP is that sometimes is overly verbose; but > it's quite descriptive and easy to parse/write, even by humans. most of > this data is not even meant to be changed often: the only sections that > changes regularly is the releases one - and that would be automagically > updated by the install-module script if I understood Olav's mail > correctly. Again, what is the use case for DOAP inside GNOME? From the first email it sound like you only want to store RDF templates in SVN so where does the rest of them go and what for? Contributors don't need it, downstream doesn't need it, do maintainers? It's not like the file contains anything non-obvious (license, programming language, SVN repo are all things you probably already know at the point where you come across the DOAP file). -- Patryk Zawadzki PLD Linux Distribution _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
