On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 00:18 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > One missing piece on git.gnome.org right now is to be able to set the > descriptions for http://git.gnome.org/cgit/. The current method is > "ask someone in the gitadmin group to do it for you", and they > > echo "Next generation GNOME desktop shell" > > /git/gnome-shell.git/descripotion > > Some ideas about how it could work: > > A) We could have another special command to set the description > > ssh git.gnome.org set-description gnome-shell "Next generation GNOME > desktop shell" > > This is really trivial to implement, but means no version control, no > logging > of who changed what to what, etc. > > B) We could use a DESCRIPTION file checked into the module and pull that > out in a hook. > > This clutters every project with another file containing almost nothing > > C) We could add a line to MAINTAINERS > > Description: Next generation GNOME desktop shell > > Sort of weird to have in maintainers. I also don't know what parses > MAINTAINERS > and would have to be adapted.
Mango and Pulse read MAINTAINERS, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure both of them will just silently ignore a line like this. For Pulse, I'd love to actually get that information, so having it in version control would be great. > D) We could revive the DOAP idea > > I thought it was a quite reasonable idea, but it generated a fair bit of > hostility that I don't fully understand. > > Hmm, we could make: > > ssh git.gnome.org set-description gnome-shell "Next generation GNOME > desktop shell" > > read your maintainers file, combine it with the provided description, > generate > a skeleton DOAP file, check it into your module in the MASTER branch... > Or > slightly less crackrock, we could have > > ssh git.gnome.org generate-doap gnome-shell > gnome-shell.rdf > > And you have to edit the skeleton yourself and check it in. If we didn't > require > people to write a <description/> then it would only be a few seconds per > module, > and that mostly in coming up with a short description for your module. > Filling > in your home page takes no time or thought. I think people largely opposed the verbosity of RDF. Plus, there were concerns about redundant data, since a lot of stuff you'd find in a DOAP file can be found elsewhere in the module, if you know how to get it. I wonder if we could define some sort of non-RDF project info file format that people actually wouldn't mind using. Something flexible and well-defined enough to provide more information that could be picked up by Pulse, but still plain-text enough that humans would write and read it. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
