On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 11:27 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > 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.
Looking through the discussion again: - There was one person who didn't like XML - There was one person who didn't want to write XML manually for his dozen modules - There was one person who thought the information was all in AUTHORS/README/MAINTAINERS anyways - There were a couple people worried about having to update versions in doap files by hand And there were more people who liked the general idea. > 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. The information largely *isn't* elsewhere. If we did put DOAP files in modules (something that Olav actually wasn't proposing, on the subsequent read-through, but IMO the right thing), we'd want to avoid having release information in there. That would be better solved by some sort of post-processing step that pulled the .doap file from git and then added the release information from a lookaside. > 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. It's definitely possible. Do we really want to be the custodians of the "like DOAP but reformatted as a INI file" file format, though? I wonder how much resistance there would be if we made it really easy to suck together existing information and create a skeleton you just edit... - Owen _______________________________________________ gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
