| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:29:45 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Flat files can be great in certain situations. Flat files do indeed |
| 8 |
> | make the parsing trivial. However SIMPLE CODE ISN'T ALWAYS THE MOST |
| 9 |
> | IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT. In the case of this GLEP, the most important |
| 10 |
> | requirement is getting the proper migration info to the users in the |
| 11 |
> | best possible way. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Read the list of requirements in the GLEP. The plain text solution |
| 14 |
> meets all of them. XML fails on several. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If readability isn't a requirement, your list is wrong. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> And, incidentally, I came up with the requirements list *before* |
| 19 |
> dismissing XML. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Given your past public statement about XML; I highly doubt that. Whether |
| 22 |
you were concious of it or not, I suspect that XML bashing was always in |
| 23 |
the mix. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> | So what are the trade-offs of the 'flat file'? If you store a |
| 26 |
> | migration guide as a 'flat file', its not going to be very readable. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Who said anything about storing a migration guide as a flat file? Read |
| 29 |
> the GLEP. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
No, *you* need to read my previous response. I was using 'flat file' to |
| 32 |
mean whatever it is you're calling your less-than-GuideXML scheme. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> | GuideXML is the standard for Gentoo docs for some damn good reasons! |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> No, it's the standard because Daniel said so. And the reasons behind |
| 37 |
> which web publishing setup we use have little relation to good reasons |
| 38 |
> for a news delivery system. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Why do you think we still send email in plain text? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Why do you think news is sent as an RSS feed? Answer: Because it has |
| 43 |
proven to be the best way! |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> *shrug* Anyway, if you want to come up with an alternate GLEP based |
| 46 |
> around XML, bittorrent, Java and CORBA, go right ahead. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
I never mentioned bittorrent, Java, or CORBA. If you don't have a valid |
| 49 |
arguement, please don't try to distract everyone by putting words into |
| 50 |
the mouths of those you're arguing with. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> The GLEP system |
| 53 |
> is quite happy with handling multiple competing proposals for a given |
| 54 |
> topic, and at the end of it we can select the best proposal, reject all |
| 55 |
> the proposals or go and come up with a new proposal with bits from |
| 56 |
> both. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
So if you didn't want people to actually review and comment on *your* |
| 59 |
GLEP, why did you write: |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
"The attached GLEP is a draft proposal for the emerge --news thing |
| 62 |
that's been under discussion. There are still some TODO items. These are |
| 63 |
calls for people to weigh in with suggestions. Of course, suggestions on |
| 64 |
other items are good too..." |
| 65 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 66 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
iD8DBQFDarNC2QTTR4CNEQARAkvgAJ91X9MQyPVLE20VPYhAVq5O36jV3gCeI/nY |
| 69 |
swzdhW0+/C84vVN9UQ8aes4= |
| 70 |
=DiXn |
| 71 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives