Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-31 Thread Sandy Armstrong
On Jan 21, 2008 3:16 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just highlighting the parts that have been missed. I'd appreciate, but it is *not at all required* to do any work after the script changes the format from MAINTAINERS to doap. The field that I *require* is the maintainer part

This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Olav Vitters
On Jan 18, 2008 9:49 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary: I'd like replace the MAINTAINERS requirement by doap files. I have a partial script that I want to expand to include as much info as I can possibly can add automatically (everything until the 'and others' above). Just

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 12:16 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Jan 18, 2008 9:49 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary: I'd like replace the MAINTAINERS requirement by doap files. I have a partial script that I want to expand to include as much info as I can possibly can add

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Olav Vitters
[forgot the reply-all, sorry] On Jan 21, 2008 12:54 PM, Mathias Hasselmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, den 21.01.2008, 12:16 +0100 schrieb Olav Vitters: On Jan 18, 2008 9:49 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary: I'd like replace the MAINTAINERS requirement by doap

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Mathias Hasselmann
Am Montag, den 21.01.2008, 12:16 +0100 schrieb Olav Vitters: On Jan 18, 2008 9:49 AM, Olav Vitters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary: I'd like replace the MAINTAINERS requirement by doap files. I have a partial script that I want to expand to include as much info as I can possibly can

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Ross Burton
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 14:43 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: - no support for git or bzr It is for GNOME SVN. Why should I care ATM for git/bzr? I'd like some *existing* format that includes that. However, couldn't find anything and I hate making a new format and then having to recreate whatever

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Jan 21, 2008 9:41 AM, Sandy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I'm part of the (so far) silent majority that doesn't care one way or the other and will be glad to fill in whatever little file helps the infrastructure team. I'm indifferent as long as this change doesn't add another

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Wouter Bolsterlee
2008-01-21 klockan 15:46 skrev Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak: Sandy Armstrong wrote: I think I'm part of the (so far) silent majority that doesn't care one way or the other and will be glad to fill in whatever little file helps the infrastructure team. Ditto. DOAP might not be perfect, but we

Re: This proposal doesn't imply extra work (was: Requiring DOAP instead of MAINTAINERS file)

2008-01-21 Thread Matthias Clasen
On Jan 21, 2008 9:56 AM, Sandy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 6:50 AM, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 21, 2008 9:41 AM, Sandy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I'm part of the (so far) silent majority that doesn't care one way or the other