Code repository

Joe Armstrong " joe.armstrong"@REDACTED
Mon Jan 16 15:18:30 CET 2006

I agree - there seems to be a gaps somewhere between CVS/souceforce 
jungerl and erlmerge.

What I'd like to have is "something like apt-get" only done right.

And when I say done right - I mean done *really really really ... right*

But this is *difficult* (difficult means I've been thinking about this 
for a *long* time) - it means signing all the code making sure only 
*tested* compatible versions are checked in etc.

At the "not theoretically sound but useful anyway" end of the spectrum 
is just a single depository for all denoted code.

A minimal system (but useful anyway) is the following:

	- one tarball per contribution
	- tarballs are nameed app-NN.MM.tgz
	  NN.MM are Major/Minor version numbers
Inside the Tarball sould be a file called  (The publish 
file). Suppose I made glurk-3.4

Inside glurk-3.4.tgz Id find the file

  this is just a list of terms like this:	
{author,"Joe Armstrong","joe.armstron@REDACTED","20050116"}.
{summary,"A wonderfull program"}.      <-- one line
{needs,["bar-3.4", "zip-6.7"]}.
{abstract,"This is cache for guid it ....
{doc, "foo123.html"}   <-- an html documetation file inside the tarball

(This is pretty much the format of the stuff at
But unfortunately "We no longer accept new contributions"

All the host site needs to arrange is a publically writable download 
area, and a script to unpack the pub files and format it neatly.

Google will do the rest.
This is basically hoe works
but without the automated upload bit.

This is a kind of halfway house between a private depository
and a full CVS/project like structure.

I think you can basically have a large amount of unstructured and
inconsistent data - or a small amount of well structured consistent 
data. The latter is provided for by sourceforce - but the former is

An alternative (even more unstructured) is to develop your code
under a public_html root and throw google at it ...



On 2006-01-16 10:01, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Hi all,
> I feel that there should be a code repository for 3rd party Erlang code that
> is easily searchable and at a smaller granularity than jungerl. Jungerl
> contains many pearls, but if they happen to be in an application that I
> don't even know what is about, I'll never look there "just in case".
> What I'd like to have is a repository for general-use library code. One
> example would be the many times discussed httpd_utils. In the end, this code
> might find its way to the standard libraries, but in the meantime why
> reinvent the wheel just because one didn't know it was already invented?
> I have a few ideas about how this could be done[*], but I'd like to know how
> interesting something like this would be for the community. Also, somebody
> else could have better implementation ideas.
> best regards,
> Vlad
> [*] Authors annotate the code (in jungerl or elsewhere) and a tool will then
> extract and publish this information online (at trapexit, maybe).
>     One way to annotate might be to choose a standard library module where
> these functions would best be found, if they were to be included in the
> standard libs. For example a mapwhile/3 function would be annotated with
> "lists".

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list