"Moshe Weitzman" wrote:
I like reuse of .info files because it centralizes project metadata. We probably need some more metadata fields.
An excellent point. (One file to rule them all. One file to bind them.)[*] The problem is: Out of 354 modules just checked, only _3_ use this file at all: refresh.info kml.info georss.info So, there's that. The general guideline of including an "INSTALL.txt", "README.txt" and "LICENSE.txt" is a very wobbly guideline also. Some have only the last, some have a README.txt which has only one sentence, saying "See some other document named blah" or similar. And some have files named without any extension at all [README]. A common, required and re-usable system should be able to avoid some of the call for a "Golden Seal" stamped onto some modules, indicating their level of quality. (I _still_ think that's a worthy system, but that debate was long and generally a non-starter.) -- inkfree [*] Plain text format with metadata labels (as it is) is excellent and re-usable in lots of ways. This should be taken advantage of, of course. I agree that there need to be more "label =" metadata data fields. Everthing should be here, and then it can be used to auto-generate the module description pages. Even whole "Module Library" descriptions could be downloaded in XML, for browsing descriptions. Yes, one well-formed file should be the basis of everything else -- maintainers only need to keep one ".info" source and that's it.