From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Guile project page garbage collection Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:38:56 +0000 Message-ID: <87hcjz6olr.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <87wsszxusc.fsf@chbouib.org> <871wb7uw5m.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <871wb7nry9.fsf@chbouib.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194385165 5276 80.91.229.12 (6 Nov 2007 21:39:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:39:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 06 22:39:28 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IpW8n-00058b-2d for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:39:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpW8c-00006o-0p for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:10 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpW8Y-00006f-HF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:06 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IpW8W-00006G-Vc for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpW8W-00006C-Ni for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IpW8R-00059O-Ue; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:00 -0500 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E271F689F; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:38:57 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from laruns (unknown [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC7B38009; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:38:56 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <871wb7nry9.fsf@chbouib.org> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s's?= message of "Sat, 03 Nov 2007 18:45:34 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6887 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > Neil Jerram 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