jdev - 2023-01-17

Sam: what's your concrete proposal for something you'd prefer other than this? Whining doesn't help

Don't use DOAP, just let people make a PR to have their logo and info on the website. All this extra complexity is harmful.

I've made multiple other proposals as well, and every time you show up and pretend like we haven't had this discussion and that I've just been wining.

Ooor, if you are going to do this, don't segregate other projects out and hide them, just put them all in the same list.

A PR in whatever format you want?

So if someone wants to PR some ASN.1 then we gotta write a parser for it?

That's a dumb idea

Don't be stupid, that's obviously not what I'm saying

The tooling supports doap, no other project has a problem with it, you can pr anything you want in doap, if you want to use asn.1 in your project feel free, but then you have to maintain the asn.1 to doap converter

Again, stop misrepresenting what I'm saying when you know full well what I meant.

We have had this discussion before, and every time you make up bullshit that I didn't say and I'm sick of it. Please leave me alone.

I still have no idea what you are saying, I think it's something like "I don't want to create or maintain a doap file, and I don't want others to do it for me, I want another format but won't say what format" ? That's why I asked for concrete suggestions

If there's a sane format you want support for, I'm sure it can be converted to doap automatically, and hence supported no problem, but you gotta propose *something* concrete

I'm not interested in another format that gets auto pulled back in, but I'd be happy to make a PR to the website that lists my project alongside all the others.

I have proposed multiple concrete things in multiple discussions.

You can make a PR, with a doap file

Got a link to the GitHub PR with your concrete proposal?

Or even a GitHub issue

You're moving the goal posts. If you'd like me to make one, I will, but this never came up in any other discussion, but fine, I'll go make one if talking about it was never enough.

Anyways, it doesn't matter, the XSF will obviously continue to plow on with DOAP, all I'm saying is don't segregate the rest of us out under the fold.

That's not the intention for sure

> and software without would be listed in a simple table below, behind a "Show List" button. That is what was just said, and has been said before.

If you don't have a doap file, or something that converts to one

Yes, that's what I was saying. That's bullshit.

So we just need a proposal of an alternate format, and someone can write a converter into a doap file, easy

Sam: Your project _is_ listed alongside all other projects, since I added a (basic) doap file for it. There is nothing to "maintain" here, since it simply contains what's been in the old list, and _not_ a list of supported XEPs. That's what we agreed on for projects which can't host their own doap file or don't want to create one. Obviously, if we implement a comparison table/view, only clients/software with more info (supported XEPs) can compete. For that, we chose an established standard, which even uses XML. Adding more and more extra info to a non-standard list doesn't seem reasonable.

And thats the point, it follows the standard

so doaps need not be complete?

cause, mine isn't listed

and i've not been keen to fiddle a proper doap until it's a priority

One certainly doesn't need to list all supported XEPs. You can probably just have the header (name, description, authors, logo, etc.)

so i'm with Sam on this one otherwise

hm

a minimal doap file containing name, shortdesc, homepage, logo, and category is ~10 lines

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0453.html#examples