You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org> on 2003/09/15 08:55:42 UTC
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems that out of this email, Nicola RT did got go futher, but
> status.xml situation needs to change.
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=105032556600001&r=1&w=2
I have reread this and I am still more convinced that we need to
finalize status things and project descriptors.
I looked back at the initial Forrest proposal, and there was a similar
proposal from Stefano:
<!--
Stefano wrote:
> subproject
> ==========
>
> each subproject should provide:
> 3.a) a 'description' file that includes information on the codebase, its
> description, its released versions, its CVS modules, its CVS tags, its
> mail lists and its documentations (yes, a subproject might have more
> than one, think of Xerces1/Xerces2, Xalan1/Xalan2, Cocoon1/Cocoon2).
> [proposed filename: /description.xml]
>
> 3.b) a 'committers info' file that includes information on the
> committers, along with a short bio, an email address and a picture of
> them. [proposed filename: /committers.xml]
>
> 3.c) a 'change log' file that includes information on changes and
> software relases [proposed filename: /changes.xml]
>
> 3.d) a 'todo list' file that includes the information on things to do
> and who volunteered for doing it [proposed filename: /todo.xml]
>
> 3.e) a 'news' file that includes events and useful information that
> should be made available to the general public.
-->
> This is the third item on our todo this, please write down a conclusion
> so we can help Nicola to finish this stuff.
>
> - Status.xml does not have DTD.
> - who.xml and status.xml have duplicated information (developer names)
> - one file two outputs does not seem logical.
> - This info need to be converted with the one in gump.
>
> Anything else?
I'd expand the proposal:
description.xml (Gump descriptor with extra *namespaced* tags
that keeps also Forrest info)
contributors.xml (as <developers> but with added homepage links
and extra developer info)
changes.xml (without authors section and with extra semantics
for compatibility breaks)
todo.xml (without authors section)
decisions.xml (keep track of all important votes and decisions of
the project)
news.xml (the project news)
These files can reside in the main project dir, or in a subdir, as ./project
To keep compatibility with the current setting, we should also make it
possible to keep a status.xml file in the project root that contains all
or some of the above inside itself.
Thus projects can decide to keep the separated files, one status file,
or a combination of the two.
> I will help nicola, but mostly is to get an agreement on this coding
> does not seem to be very hard,
Agreed. I'll do this myself once we decide.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml,
todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
<snip/>
> 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.
Some projects cannot use an issue tracker, as they do not have
access to one. They would need to use the simple todo xml list
that Forrest currently uses.
--David
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
> What I mean here as "standard" is not the "endorsed" format, but a more
> general format to which all descriptors can be converted. Once we are
> able to render that descriptor format, we just need to convert others to
> that. The Gump and Maven formats have both differences, but the Gump
> format is more generic, and can be augmented with extra namespaced tags
> without breaking, so I regard it as the only possible one for a common
> format. We could define ours, dunno if it's that necessary though (could
> be).
+1 to use an intermediate format.
>
> Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are
> finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.
>
-1 to long discussions. It has been 20 weeks already for this issue with
not conclusion.
> So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial
> reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.
>
> Deal?
>
+1 But you need to look on GUMP and Maven format as well, we do not want
to miss element that are crutial for them.
What about creating a format on the wiki, so users are able to have an
input on this?
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> I'm not sure on all these common formats. When there's only one or two
> _source_ formats (here, Maven and Gump), isn't is easier just to write
> two stylesheets than to try to come up with an XML format that is
> superset of both?
Since I want to minimize the differences between the common format and
at least one of the sources (less work), I'll extend the Gump one as
it's more generic and expandable without breaking Gump. That means that
Gump can use the expanded one without breaking.
So yes, the format will be a superset of both, but to minimize work it
will be based on the gump format.
> I guess the choice is up to the person who does the work ;)
;-)
>>Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are
>>finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.
>>
>>So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial
>>reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.
>>
>>Deal?
>
> +1
Excellent! Way to go! :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> ...
> >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".
>
> What I mean here as "standard" is not the "endorsed" format, but a more
> general format to which all descriptors can be converted. Once we are
> able to render that descriptor format, we just need to convert others to
> that. The Gump and Maven formats have both differences, but the Gump
> format is more generic, and can be augmented with extra namespaced tags
> without breaking, so I regard it as the only possible one for a common
> format. We could define ours, dunno if it's that necessary though (could
> be).
I'm not sure on all these common formats. When there's only one or two
_source_ formats (here, Maven and Gump), isn't is easier just to write
two stylesheets than to try to come up with an XML format that is
superset of both?
I guess the choice is up to the person who does the work ;)
> Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are
> finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.
>
> So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial
> reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.
>
> Deal?
+1
--Jeff
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Just a couple of further explanations:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 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.
Actually I had never thought of using it for Forrest, so I never
inserted it in the Forrest plans. Might as well do so though, it may be
a nice idea. Let's just not depend on it.
...
> 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".
What I mean here as "standard" is not the "endorsed" format, but a more
general format to which all descriptors can be converted. Once we are
able to render that descriptor format, we just need to convert others to
that. The Gump and Maven formats have both differences, but the Gump
format is more generic, and can be augmented with extra namespaced tags
without breaking, so I regard it as the only possible one for a common
format. We could define ours, dunno if it's that necessary though (could
be).
Anyway, again I'm seeing that we go in a lot of talking and once we are
finished I feel that my itches don't itch anymore.
So I propose that I implement my proposal taking into account initial
reactions, and then we can all judge from that how to make it better.
Deal?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:50:09PM +0200, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> >>>1) Deprecate the <todo> section in favour of using an issue tracker.
> >>>Even in Forrest, no-one bothers to keep it up to date.
> >>
> >>Even if you add a issue tracker you need to keep a scheme so you can
> >>imported in the same fashion as you do with changes.rss.
> >
> >
> >Er, say again? JIRA has RSS feeds..
> >
>
> we are talking about definition of the format to use, it is not
> important if our source is a file, another source (wiki) or rss feed.
Oh I see. We can create a common intermediate XML format if you like.
IMHO live issues (bugs and todo items) are best displayed in an issue
tracker, where users can run queries and add comments to them.
> What is important at this point if to ensure that we have the right xml
> schema for our projects.
>
> >
> >
> >We don't need to _replace_ it, just support additional text-based
> >formats, that would be transformed internally into the XML format.
> >
> >--Jeff
>
> still, to give you an example, we have been adding all these action
> items on status.xml, now we are able to:
>
>
> Order and display content by @dev @type @context
> Divide for contributed actions
> count number of bug fixed.
>
>
> are you able to do that with wiki?
Possibly, probably not in general. It's a tradeoff:
text -> XML -> database + issue tracker
Each step gives up convenience for increased detail and queryability.
Forrest should support whatever our users want. From observation, I'd
say most value a simple syntax over queryability.
--Jeff
> Cheers,
> Cheche
>
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
>>>1) Deprecate the <todo> section in favour of using an issue tracker.
>>>Even in Forrest, no-one bothers to keep it up to date.
>>
>>Even if you add a issue tracker you need to keep a scheme so you can
>>imported in the same fashion as you do with changes.rss.
>
>
> Er, say again? JIRA has RSS feeds..
>
we are talking about definition of the format to use, it is not
important if our source is a file, another source (wiki) or rss feed.
What is important at this point if to ensure that we have the right xml
schema for our projects.
>
>
> We don't need to _replace_ it, just support additional text-based
> formats, that would be transformed internally into the XML format.
>
> --Jeff
still, to give you an example, we have been adding all these action
items on status.xml, now we are able to:
Order and display content by @dev @type @context
Divide for contributed actions
count number of bug fixed.
are you able to do that with wiki?
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:04:45PM +0200, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> >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.
>
> Even if you add a issue tracker you need to keep a scheme so you can
> imported in the same fashion as you do with changes.rss.
Er, say again? JIRA has RSS feeds..
> Maybe we need to put todo items first (like cocoon's) so people will
> remember to add/remove items.
>
> >
> > 2) Adopt a Wiki-based text format for the changelog. Two excellent
> > examples are Log4j's and Ant's:
>
> -1 we are looking at xml based solutiond, importing wiki is cool, but
> not a replace for xml
We don't need to _replace_ it, just support additional text-based
formats, that would be transformed internally into the XML format.
--Jeff
>
> Cheers,
> Cheche
>
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm,
news and other descriptors])
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Jeff Turner wrote:
> 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.
who.xml is "who we are" the list of commiters is the same as you get on
status.xml
>
> 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.
Even if you add a issue tracker you need to keep a scheme so you can
imported in the same fashion as you do with changes.rss.
Maybe we need to put todo items first (like cocoon's) so people will
remember to add/remove items.
>
> 2) Adopt a Wiki-based text format for the changelog. Two excellent
> examples are Log4j's and Ant's:
-1 we are looking at xml based solutiond, importing wiki is cool, but
not a replace for xml
People usually add actions. we can have the choice of adding manually of
importing from another source.
> 3) Adopt Maven's project.xml as our default metadata format, as it seems
> clean, simple, and in wide use.
>
>
> --Jeff
+1 but only if suits our needs.
Cheers,
Cheche
Re: Project definition. (Re: [RT] Status.xml, changes.xml, todos.xmlm, news and other descriptors])
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:55:42AM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
> >This is the third item on our todo this, please write down a conclusion
> >so we can help Nicola to finish this stuff.
> >
> >- Status.xml does not have DTD.
> >- who.xml and status.xml have duplicated information (developer names)
> >- one file two outputs does not seem logical.
> >- This info need to be converted with the one in gump.
> >
> >Anything else?
>
> I'd expand the proposal:
>
> description.xml (Gump descriptor with extra *namespaced* tags
> that keeps also Forrest info)
> contributors.xml (as <developers> but with added homepage links
> and extra developer info)
> changes.xml (without authors section and with extra semantics
> for compatibility breaks)
> todo.xml (without authors section)
> decisions.xml (keep track of all important votes and decisions of
> the project)
> news.xml (the project news)
>
> These files can reside in the main project dir, or in a subdir, as ./project
>
> To keep compatibility with the current setting, we should also make it
> possible to keep a status.xml file in the project root that contains all
> or some of the above inside itself.
>
> Thus projects can decide to keep the separated files, one status file,
> or a combination of the two.
>
> >I will help nicola, but mostly is to get an agreement on this coding
> >does not seem to be very hard,
>
> Agreed. I'll do this myself once we decide.
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?
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.
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.
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
3) Adopt Maven's project.xml as our default metadata format, as it seems
clean, simple, and in wide use.
--Jeff
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>