[SM-Discuss] New sections [Was: New archive and perl-cpan maintainer]
d.malcolm at auckland.ac.nz
Wed Feb 23 14:45:45 EST 2005
Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:02:40AM -0600, Jeremy Blosser wrote:
>>On Feb 23, Flavien Bridault [f.bridault at fra.net] wrote:
>>>Le Mercredi 23 F?vrier 2005 01:29, Jeremy Blosser a ?crit :
>>>>Comments/suggestions/name changes/hate mail welcome.
>>>I love these new sections :) I think we should do as well fo others big
>>Yes, if people like this kind of division it would make sense to do the
>>rest in the same kind of scheme as well. I can work on this if Arwed/etc.
>>wants, but I know it isn't on the current priorities list...
> I thought about that too, I will split the video section in a similar
> way the audio stuff is split soon. For section maintainers it's
> basically their decision what to do with their section, but of course it
> would be nicer if we can agree on a general scheme for this.
I was thinking the categories that Freshmeat or Sourceforge might help
or be a guide. I'm thinking of using their categories for the science
section. I noticed they don't have a usually separate libraries into a
separate category. I also noticed a program can be part of many
sections, or in their terms "topics". Would it be reasonable to have a
flag in the DETAILS file called "TOPIC" or "CATEGORY". Just thinking out
>>>Extracting udev and devfsd would also be a good thing, I don't understand
>>>why they are in disk... They don't manage disks only.
>>They could probably go in the "system" section I suggested.
>>>Mmmh just a question, would it be possible (technically, p4 ?) to make
>>>subsections, even sub-subsections ?? It would make the things easier and
>>>would avoid to have dozens of sections at the same level. As an alternative,
>>>we can obviously do as usual : prefix the sections to make a kind of
>>Subsections would be nice if they are possible, but that may be too much
>>change to do all at once (I assume it would mean changes to sorcery).
> I'm not too fond of the idea of subsections. Divisions like
> <primaryName-subName> is easier to handle imo.
I like the idea of subsections, especially when we get a lot of
sections. However, I understand this is not crucial at this stage.
I notice a lot of features requested on the mailing list, these should
be added to the wishlist on the wiki and ranked with something like
"easy", "medium", and "hard" and "nice", "improvement" and "critical"
or something along those lines. Similar to the way bzflag and abiword
document their requests.
More information about the SM-Discuss