Guile project page garbage collection

Guile project page garbage collection

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

I shamelessly added projects I've been working on to
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/gnu-guile-projects.html .

However, this page is terribly outdated.  I'm not convinced that the
Free Software Directory is the right approach to advertise Guile
programs/libraries, so I think we should do something about the Guile
project page.

So, here's a proposal:

  * We rename the page to `old-gnu-guile-projects.html' and start a new
    one; the new page would contain a link to the old one, hidden at the
    bottom or something like that.

  * To get listed on the new page, people must send an HTML entry with
    accurate information.  It shouldn't be too much of a burden to
    install new entries if we just have to copy/paste them.

    I would also suggest to do away with the `author', `maintainer' and
    `status' fields since they are not very useful and are bound to
    become outdated (well, except for `author').

  * We'd limit `gnu-guile-projects.html' to software that runs with 1.8
    (or 1.6 too?) and move other projects to
    `old-gnu-guile-projects.html' until they upgrade.  :-)

    Likewise, we'd preferably refrain from adding entries for software
    that's "mostly unwritten".

The idea is that the page should reflect what users can do today with
the latest Guile while being able to get support.  I think this can be
beneficial both to Guile and Guile-based projects.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Ludovic, Publicity Chair.  ;-)



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Guile project page garbage collection

[Neil Jerram]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

>   * To get listed on the new page, people must send an HTML entry with
>     accurate information.  It shouldn't be too much of a burden to
>     install new entries if we just have to copy/paste them.
>
>     I would also suggest to do away with the `author', `maintainer' and
>     `status' fields since they are not very useful and are bound to
>     become outdated (well, except for `author').

> What do you think?

One immediate worry: for the projects that are up to date, I am
concerned that we would be asking the authors to jump through a new
set of hoops, when they've already jumped nicely through the hoops
that we specified before.

Can we not do something using the existing format (assuming that the
records in that format are available somewhere), so as not to require
resubmission of equivalent information?

      Neil

(I completely agree about cleaning out old stuff, and about
building with 1.6/1.8 being a good test, though.)



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Guile project page garbage collection

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> One immediate worry: for the projects that are up to date, I am
> concerned that we would be asking the authors to jump through a new
> set of hoops, when they've already jumped nicely through the hoops
> that we specified before.

OTOH, it's been a while since somebody submitted something, I think, so
maybe it's probably not unreasonable to expect authors to be re-submit a
thing; or they could just say "keep the previous entry for my project".

> Can we not do something using the existing format (assuming that the
> records in that format are available somewhere), so as not to require
> resubmission of equivalent information?

You mean the s-exp-based format?  I don't know whether the information
was kept in this format somewhere and actually, I don't know what tools
are available to deal with it.  I think we could work with raw HTML,
given that entries are fairly simple.

Thanks,
Ludovic.



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Guile project page garbage collection

[Neil Jerram]

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hi,
>
> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
>> One immediate worry: for the projects that are up to date, I am
>> concerned that we would be asking the authors to jump through a new
>> set of hoops, when they've already jumped nicely through the hoops
>> that we specified before.
>
> OTOH, it's been a while since somebody submitted something, I think, so
> maybe it's probably not unreasonable to expect authors to be re-submit a
> thing; or they could just say "keep the previous entry for my project".
>
>> Can we not do something using the existing format (assuming that the
>> records in that format are available somewhere), so as not to require
>> resubmission of equivalent information?
>
> You mean the s-exp-based format?  I don't know whether the information
> was kept in this format somewhere and actually, I don't know what tools
> are available to deal with it.  I think we could work with raw HTML,
> given that entries are fairly simple.

Yes.  I had a quick look for the saved project submissions.  I thought
they might be somewhere in Savannah CVS, or else in one of ttn's
websites.  But I couldn't find them.

The tools for dealing with this format are available, though; see
http://gnuvola.org/software/guile-projects/.

But in any case, if they contain equivalent information, I guess one
protocol (HTML) is as good as another (sexp).

Do you have something in mind for implementing an automatic
build/sanity check, or are you implying that project maintainers
should confirm that their projects still build with 1.6/1.8 before
resubmitting their entries?

Regards,
        Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Guile project page garbage collection

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> The tools for dealing with this format are available, though; see
> http://gnuvola.org/software/guile-projects/.

OK.

> But in any case, if they contain equivalent information, I guess one
> protocol (HTML) is as good as another (sexp).

Yep, that's what I thought, especially if the latter doesn't buy us much
practically, which I suspect.  After all, we're just talking about 20
entries or so I suppose, not hundreds.

> Do you have something in mind for implementing an automatic
> build/sanity check, or are you implying that project maintainers
> should confirm that their projects still build with 1.6/1.8 before
> resubmitting their entries?

I was thinking about something completely manual: send an email to
`guile-user' explaining the plan, then wait for submissions and
copy/paste them in the page.  We could also be kind enough to explicitly
email individuals when deemed appropriate, although it's not
unreasonable to expect them to hang around `guile-user' IMO.

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Guile project page garbage collection

[Neil Jerram]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> I was thinking about something completely manual: send an email to
> `guile-user' explaining the plan, then wait for submissions and
> copy/paste them in the page.  We could also be kind enough to explicitly
> email individuals when deemed appropriate, although it's not
> unreasonable to expect them to hang around `guile-user' IMO.

OK then.  It will be good to have the projects page more reliable and
up to date, and that's probably worth a very small risk of irking
people who submitted in the other format before.

      Neil



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel