Philip Dodds wrote:
On 2007-07-12 16:12:21 -0400, Philip Dodds <philip.dodds@xxxxxxxxx> said:
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.9
We have been doing some thinking on creating an extensible common
project model.
Why do we need a common project model?
A large part of providing a holistic view of the community resources
and technologies in play within a project is understanding broader
information about the project. The Maven styled pom.xml adds a rich
set of information that can be used to understand both the structure of
the project, its dependencies but also additional information that
would support a developer looking to work in a loosely coupled manager
with a project.
Continuing this thread of thought -
Would calling it a collaboration model rather than either common or
community model. Since the aim of gather information about the project
(everything from mailing lists through to some level of information
about its dependencies and even possiblity its source structuring).
The thought here that standard structuring of this information would
lower the barrier to entry for collaboration both as a co-developer but
also a consumer of the project?
P
I've started to take a stab at identifying the bits and pieces of all
of the other models that are out there.
See: http://joakim.erdfelt.com/kepler/common_models_matrix.html
Other Formats: http://joakim.erdfelt.com/kepler/
I've looked at LSM, Maven 1, Maven 2, Eclipse Plug-in Manifest, Java
Manifest, OSGi, DOAP, sf.net, freshmeat.net, google code, yum, apt,
osdir.com, and the FSF/GNU software map.
This is just a first pass, I'll be working out some grouping of
concepts shortly.
Hopefully this can get some serious discussion started.
- Joakim