| 1 |
On Saturday 28 June 2003 08:16, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> > - The changelog. This probably will be a topic of debate. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Implement herds first. Hold off on ChangeLog stuff until we have excellent |
| 6 |
> tools to enter/edit ChangeLogs without seeing raw XML. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We need herds today. We don't absolutely need XML ChangeLogs today. Herds |
| 9 |
> implementation should not be held back on the account of XML ChangeLogs. |
| 10 |
> They can be added later when the ChangeLog editing tools are polished. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
To all people discussing xml changelogs. I agree with Daniel on this that the |
| 14 |
changelog and the rest of the file are more or less separate. Also the |
| 15 |
metadata.xml files will be implemented before consensus is reached on xml |
| 16 |
changelogs. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To allow xml changelogs we would first need the conversion tools I talked |
| 19 |
about. But to develop the tools we first need the format. For that the format |
| 20 |
needs to be discussed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Paul |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
ps. so, don't worry, xml changelogs will not be pushed through as part of the |
| 25 |
herds reorganisation. I actually don't even want to think about making xml |
| 26 |
changelogs without conversion tools. Converting manually the entries in the |
| 27 |
example file was allready too much work, so full changelogs is undoable. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 31 |
Researcher |
| 32 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 33 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives