I was just browsing… interesting 
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?MauricioFernandez/RaaSuccRequirementsEngineering
I have thought about a packagemanagement system before for
an operating system… I have some extra ideas for raa.succ:
It would be nice to get ruby-projects evaluated by independent
people. So that when you are browsing RAA, you can see
-
how well documentated a project is. Is the documentation in
English/Japanise/Germane? Is it well written, intuitive?
-
is it dead/alive/abandon… should I choose another project to base
my code on?
-
is it alpha/beta/stable ?
-
license ?
-
maybe some text about user-experience with the package?
These reviews could maybe encourage people to get a quality stamp
on their projects
Just a thought
···
–
Simon Strandgaard
No replies… is anyone reading this ?
Could it be useful, is it overkill… what do you think ?
···
–
Simon Strandgaard
This all only needs loose integration w/ RAA.rucc. I mean that this
would work best once we have a standard metadata format so these things
can be extracted directly from the “metapackages”, but in the meantime
it should be possible to enrich RAA even as it stands now: this would
essentially mean having our own Freshmeat.
···
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:02:14AM +0900, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
It would be nice to get ruby-projects evaluated by independent
people. So that when you are browsing RAA, you can see
-
how well documentated a project is. Is the documentation in
English/Japanise/Germane? Is it well written, intuitive?
-
is it dead/alive/abandon… should I choose another project to base
my code on?
-
is it alpha/beta/stable ?
-
license ?
-
maybe some text about user-experience with the package?
These reviews could maybe encourage people to get a quality stamp
on their projects 
–
_ _
__ __ | | ___ _ __ ___ __ _ _ __
'_ \ / | __/ __| '_ _ \ / ` | ’ \
) | (| | |__ \ | | | | | (| | | | |
.__/ _,|_|/| || ||_,|| |_|
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
Linux: The OS people choose without $200,000,000 of persuasion.
– Mike Coleman
freshmeat… I havn’t thought about this, even though I use it
I think freshmeat is a bit bloated, hard browsable…
RAA.succ can only get better
···
On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:52:28 +0900, Mauricio Fernández wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 03:02:14AM +0900, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
It would be nice to get ruby-projects evaluated by independent
people. So that when you are browsing RAA, you can see
-
how well documentated a project is. Is the documentation in
English/Japanise/Germane? Is it well written, intuitive?
-
is it dead/alive/abandon… should I choose another project to base
my code on?
-
is it alpha/beta/stable ?
-
license ?
-
maybe some text about user-experience with the package?
These reviews could maybe encourage people to get a quality stamp
on their projects
This all only needs loose integration w/ RAA.rucc. I mean that this
would work best once we have a standard metadata format so these things
can be extracted directly from the “metapackages”, but in the meantime
it should be possible to enrich RAA even as it stands now: this would
essentially mean having our own Freshmeat.
–
Simon Strandgaard