On 17 April 2018 at 22:00, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:16 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 April 2018 at 20:05, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:48 PM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 17 April 2018 at 19:04, Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > I've noticed some TLPs don't have DOAP files, and many others are not
>> >> > well-maintained.
>> >>
>> >> True
>> >>
>> >> > As I understand it, these were once used to populate
>> projects.apache.org
>> >> [1]
>> >> > But, I do not think they have any current use. (please correct me if
>> I'm
>> >> > wrong)
>> >>
>> >> They *are* still used for projects.a.o, as per the About page:
>> >> [2] https://projects.apache.org/about.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> > It is certainly the case that the documentation *says* they are still
>> used,
>> > but I think that's a case of the documentation being wrong or outdated.
>> >
>> > Projects without them seem to be listed just as well as projects which
>> have
>> > them.
>>
>> I think you are confusing projects with PMCs.
>>
>>
> No. I definitely mean "projects", as in TLP ("Top Level Project"), "
> projects.apache.org", and DOAP ("description of a project").
>
> The *project* is missing the DOAP, because their *PMC* did not create one.
> Yet, nothing seems to be broken.
It seems not to be broken because the website creates minimal project
pages for each PMC.
This assumes that the project name is the same as the name of the PMC.
Perhaps it should not do that.
>
>> >
>> >> > The premise of the file ("to be listed on this site") is certainly
>> false,
>> >> > at the very least.
>> >>
>> >> [1] is a page from the original projects site and may need tweaking.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > As far as I can tell, it is the *only* place where DOAP files are
>> > documented for purpose, structure, and the process to make use of them.
>> > The about page in [2] does not substitute for any of this documentation.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> [2] is not a substitute for [1], because it does not have any of the
> content contained in [1].
>
>
>> Where should it be documented?
>>
>>
> I don't know... you were the one who pointed to that page, not me. I never
> said [2] should be a substitute for [1]. I'm just trying to figure out if
> [1] or [2] (or any other DOAP documentation) is relevant *AT ALL*. [1]
> describes the original purpose, etc., but it does not seem relevant
> anymore, and no other page describes its current relevance.
I have already written that the DOAPs are used to flesh out the Project pages.
>
>> > So, if [1] is out of date, then there is no current documentation for
>> > purpose, structure, or process to make use of them.
>>
>> [2]
>>
>>
> No. [2] doesn't have any of that content. It merely mentions that they
> exist and that the PMC is responsible for them.
It also implies that the DOAPs are used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
>> >
>> >> > And, despite the numerous site checks Whimsy does, checking for DOAP
>> does
>> >> > not appear to be one of them, though it does provide a link, if it
>> exists
>> >> > for a project.
>> >>
>> >> Projects.a.o validates them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Okay. But, just as a spellcheck of an email which is never sent is
>> useless,
>> > so too is validation of an RDF file which is never utilized.
>>
>> projects.a.o validates all the DOAPs that it is told about as per [2]
>>
>>
> Yeah. That's great, but as I pointed out, it's useless to do so if they
> aren't utilized for any other purpose.
As I keep saying, the DOAPs *ARE* used to build the p.a.o pages.
>
>> >
>> >> > My questions are:
>> >> > Is a DOAP file required?
>> >> > If so, by what policy
>> >>
>> >> No idea
>> >>
>> >> > and for what purpose?
>> >>
>> >> See [2]
>> >>
>> >>
>> > That does not explain purpose. It simply mentions the fact that they
>> exist
>> > and who is responsible for maintaining them. It does link to a cwiki page
>> > which describes itself as containing "historical information", which
>> > further suggests they have no current use (or at least, no currently
>> > documented use).
>>
>> [2] says:
>>
>> How The Code Works
>> ... from various data sources ...
>> 3. Project DOAP files listed in
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/projects.apache.org/data/projects.xml
>>
>>
> Yeah, I know what it says. But it's not true. It doesn't say how it is
> used, it doesn't say what purpose it serves currently, and if a project
> doesn't have one, nothing seems to be broken.
See above.
> So, my questions still stand:
>
> Are they still required?
They are required to provide data for the p.a.o projects pages.
> If so, by what policy and for what purpose? (not the original purpose,
> documented at [1]... but the *current* purpose, which in spite of being
> mentioned on [2], does not actually appear to exist).
See above.
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Christopher
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]: https://projects.apache.org/create.html
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
