1 |
Hi everyone |
2 |
|
3 |
Since people are talking about metadata.xml again I'd like to present two |
4 |
more GLEPs which will ease the process of auto-assigning bugs on one side |
5 |
and make it a bit safer on the other side. Both of them are still in draft |
6 |
state and if someone would like to contribute I'd be really happy. |
7 |
|
8 |
One GLEP introduces new elements 'team', 'dev' and 'proxy': |
9 |
|
10 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-new_metadata_elements.html |
11 |
|
12 |
The idea is to reduce some of the redundency we have in the tree and to |
13 |
explicitly write who the maintainer is. It logically depends on my former |
14 |
GLEP about Gentoo's herd/team metastructure, but doesn't depend on it in a |
15 |
technical sense. |
16 |
Furthermore it makes it possible to define maintainer-proxy relationships. |
17 |
|
18 |
It would make the auto-assignment process based on metadata.xml safer since |
19 |
it makes it possible to validate the maintainer. |
20 |
And this is where the second GLEP comes in: |
21 |
|
22 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~dev-zero/glep/glep-xsd.html |
23 |
|
24 |
In this GLEP I propose to switch from DTD to XSD for metadata.xml (and |
25 |
herd.xml) to be able to validate content. |
26 |
Even though some people like to argue that content should not be validated, |
27 |
it makes sense to do it since the metadata.xml are not "prosa" but can be |
28 |
interpreted as kind of database entries. Another reason is that |
29 |
parent-child constraints can't be validated using DTD (especially GLEP 46 |
30 |
can't be properly implemented using DTD). But that's all written in the |
31 |
GLEP... |
32 |
|
33 |
What do you think of them? |
34 |
|
35 |
Cheers, |
36 |
Tiziano |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
-- |
40 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |