forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicola...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Date Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:42:54 GMT
Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> 
> What happened to ViProM?  Wasn't that meant to be a virtual project
> model, built from Gump/Maven/Whatever?  Or is that just my imagination?

It's in the works, yes.

> IMHO, things like the project description, contributors, decisions, news
> etc, are not important enough (or frequently updated) to warrant
> polluting every project's root directory with.  Why not just reuse
> Maven's project.xml format, or Gump's module.xml?
> 
> I have no idea what who.xml is, and have never seen it used.

It's the authors. Not yet used, but it would have all the extra info 
about the pwoplw involved.

> IMHO, we should:
> 
>  1) Deprecate the <todo> section in favour of using an issue tracker.
>  Even in Forrest, no-one bothers to keep it up to date.

On other projects it's used. Only because Forrest does not use it 
doesn't mean that it's useless.

Furthermore, one thing is having a possible todo format, another is 
requiring it.

Once we have in place the possibility of specifying the sources of the 
files in a user sitemap, we will be able to integrate all incoming todo 
feeds; what we need to define now is our internal format for them.

>  2) Adopt a Wiki-based text format for the changelog.  Two excellent
>  examples are Log4j's and Ant's:
> 
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-log4j/docs/HISTORY?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
> 
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/ant/WHATSNEW?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

Let's start with the xml formats first. Then we can also add a more 
textual representation of them.

>  3) Adopt Maven's project.xml as our default metadata format, as it seems
>  clean, simple, and in wide use.

Gump's format is also in wide use.

Maven's format has a shortcoming, that it does not provide the semantics 
for multiple subprojects. But if I had a Maven-built program, I would 
not want to use the Gump format of course.

Hence I would propose that we adopt Gump's format with extra namespaced 
elements for things we need, and also support the Maven format.

This is the same concept of what I proposed before of also supporting 
the xml Maven format and navigation.xml.

One thing is supporting, another is adopting as "standard".

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------



Mime
View raw message