On Friday 25 October 2002 10:47 am, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > /CCing incubator/ > > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > >>I also don't think that the PMC should set guidelines on a release > > >>(other than 3 binding +1s) or on coding style or on build systems. > > >>Leave that up to the committers. The PMCs job should be to stay the > > >>heck out of the way of the committers. If the committers need help, > > >>they can ask the PMC for guidance, but let's not have a PMC that > > >>dictates from upon high. > > > > > > I'm assuming other things would exist. A project must have a > > > PROPOSAL.html. A project must maintain a STATUS.html. A release must > > > have a release manager. > > > > In Forrest, we have decided to keep the information about the project in > > xml files. > > > > Module.xml is a descriptor of the CVS module and the project it > > contains, with goals, license, credits, project-related info and > > dependencies with other projects. > > > > In status.xml there are the committers, the todo and the changes. > > > > Forrest already makes info based on status, and we'll get module.xml > > done too soon: > > > > http://xml.apache.org/forrest/changes.html > > http://xml.apache.org/forrest/todo.html > > > > What do you think, could this be an option? > > I'm not that bothered, so I'll immediately be a hypocrit and suggest +ves > and -ves. > > XML is a better storage mechanism but a worse presentation mechanism > [using w3m to view an xml file probably isn't as exciting as a html. but > it's a minor thing outweight by the advantage of a structured file]. > > XML is usually a finite domain, whereas HTML is infinite. By that I mean > that if we used XML to record this information then it would as I said be > more structured, but would also be limited. If someone wanted to add some > more information, then they have to request new tags? Or would it be > free-flow xml? In a HTML one the information is unbounded but > unstructured. > > I guess it just depends on whether the existing proposal/status files out > there are deemed to be enough evolving to define a standard. Which brings > on the arguments over whether maven's project.xml, forrest's module.xml > etc should be the standard :) > > Really my initial mail was that the information in PROPOSAL.html and > STATUS.html should exist in each project, and that A-C as a project > probably wants to standardise how to store this information. Using the > same system as J-C is not mandatory. > > STATUS.html is very limited in scope. Standardising that as an xml document shouldn't be _that_ difficult. Current committers, to do lists, planned releases, current release, etc.
PROPOSAL.html is a lot less structured. Or would be if everyone in Jakarta-Commons wasn't creatively lazy, and didn't copy from the last succesful PROPOSAL.html. The important thing about PROPOSAL is that it is what defines and limits the scope of a component. It's what was voted on to accept the component.
