Subject: Re: [boost] Library metadata
From: Daniel James (dnljms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-26 02:31:16
On 24 February 2014 00:45, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 24 February 2014 00:09, Ahmed Charles <acharles_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On another note, did you consider JSON as a viable format or is there a strong reason to go with XML?
> I'm just using it because it's the existing data format. JSON is fine,
> the data is simple enough that it should be easy to support. Some time
> ago, I decided not to use it on the site because I wanted to support
> Python 2.5, but I don't think that's necessary any more. Although if
> we do something similar for the expected failures, that will probably
> have to be in xml.
OK, I've added support for json and added a maintainers fields. The
functional metadata is now in JSON:
Both 'authors' and 'maintainers' can be a single string or an array of strings.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk