From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2005-03-04T23:38:51+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & b

Francis Hwang wrote:
> 
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 9:10 PM, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> 
>>
>> There are many projects on RubyForge that do not host their project 
>> there.
>> Ruby on Rails is a good example. It is hosted on its own servers, tracks
>> bugs and issues on its own servers, but releases RubyGems to RubyForge 
>> for
>> easy download and install.
>>
> 
> Yes, but should they have to do that to be considered alongside all the 
> other Ruby libs? There are a number of pretty great libs that don't 
> release to RubyForge. Personally, I use it 'cause, well, I'm lazy. But I 
> don't think everybody should have to.
> 
> I think ideally, this would be handled generally using some basic sort 
> of publish-update mechanism. The DOAP project is well-suited for this, 
> and in theory could be integrated with FOAF. Then you could release your 
> lib wherever, and ping the right servers to go slurp your updated DOAP 
> file, then people would have a lot of personal choice as to where they 
> host their libs.

This is an appealing idea.  The fewer places a developer needs to go to 
  update information, the more reliable that information will be.

I would be nice to have  a Rake task that pulls together various bits of 
information, assembles  descriptor file, and pings some server to 
indicate New Stuff.   (Though I believe that RAA has or had a SOAP 
interface, so something like this may be doable now.)


James