Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-10-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:40:50 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:16:32 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:42:40 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On IRC we seem to have found some consensus about metadata.xml:

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-10-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:12:13 -0400 Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: I had just given some reasons above, in the part that you haven't quoted. My main issue was with the burden of proof bit. This isn't a court

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-10-01 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 23:03:51 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:01:35 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. Then we might as well extend the

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: [Restoring context omitted from quote.] The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. First of all, the name tag is optional, so we cannot rely on its being present.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:09:30 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: maintainer email[address of the herd]/email name[name of the herd]/name !-- if you like -- /maintainer The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. Then

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. Then we might as well extend the DTD to have a required email tag nested in each herd tag. But IIUC, the DTD must be changed also if the herd tag is removed? (Unless we want to leave a dead

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: I had just given some reasons above, in the part that you haven't quoted. My main issue was with the burden of proof bit. This isn't a court - we're free to do whatever seems to make the most sense, and not worry about

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-30 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:01:35 +0200 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. Then we might as well extend the DTD to have a required email tag nested in each herd tag. But IIUC, the DTD

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On IRC we seem to have found some consensus about metadata.xml: 1 ) We should 1a) deprecate the herd tag in metadata.xml (that's 17,856 files or so?) in favour of 1b) a conversion to their respective maintainer tags 1c) where the email tag

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-09-29, o godz. 19:20:54 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: On IRC we seem to have found some consensus about metadata.xml: 1 ) We should 1a) deprecate the herd tag in metadata.xml (that's 17,856 files or so?) in favour

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-09-29, o godz. 19:20:54 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a): This will lose the information if a maintainer is a project/team or an individual developer, which I think is still useful. Could we keep this information somehow? Maybe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2014-09-29, o godz. 20:13:19 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a): On Mon, 29 Sep 2014, Michał Górny wrote: Dnia 2014-09-29, o godz. 19:20:54 Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a): This will lose the information if a maintainer is a project/team or an individual

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:42:40 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On IRC we seem to have found some consensus about metadata.xml: IRC is huge; where did you manage to find consensus in there with whom? 1 ) We should 1a) deprecate the herd tag in metadata.xml (that's 17,856 files or

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:16:32 +0200 Tom Wijsman tom...@gentoo.org wrote: On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:42:40 +0200 Jeroen Roovers j...@gentoo.org wrote: On IRC we seem to have found some consensus about metadata.xml: IRC is huge; where did you manage to find consensus in there with whom? I

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: maintainer email[address of the herd]/email name[name of the herd]/name !-- if you like -- /maintainer The same tags shouldn't be used for different things. First of all, the name tag is optional, so we cannot rely on its being present. Second,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating and killing herds in metadata.xml

2014-09-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote: On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Jeroen Roovers wrote: Please provide some examples of when and how that piece of information, herd, is important. Don't shift the burden of proof, please. Meh, knowing if the status quo is useful is