Hey,
I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal.
Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named doap or
something like module.doap?
Now's the time to decide, before too many modules add one...
Cheers,
behdad
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal.
Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named doap or
something like module.doap?
Now's the time to decide, before too many modules add one...
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal.
Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named doap or
something like
On 04/18/2009 08:18 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 03:51 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Hey,
I wonder if naming the doap file after the module name is optimal.
Wouldn't be it easier to process if the file was simply named doap or
something like module.doap?
Now's the time to
