2009/5/26 Chusslove Illich <caslav.i...@gmx.net>: >> [: Ian Monroe :] >> I agree that there's no reason translators and programmers should use the >> same system. However I don't think letting individual projects in KDE pick >> their own VCS is a good idea. Amarok is probably going to switch before >> the rest, but this is purely transitional. Keeping all the developers in >> KDE on the same technological ship is important to the culture, and >> there's no technology more critical to development then VCS. > > This depends on definition of "in KDE" :) If that means "presently in > central KDE repo", then, well, such definition is obviously going to be made > void. While (just giving examples, not a policy opinion) core modules may > all use same VCS, some extragear apps may not.
Well I think all extragear apps are in KDE and should use the same VCS. :) > For random KDE apps presently > not in KDE repo (Krusader comes to mind as prominent example), there is > neither a way (nor the need) to enforce a given VCS. But there is no reason > for a random KDE app not to be able to benefit from KDE Translation Project > (KTP), should they want so and agree to terms established by KTP. Translation is one of the major benefits in having your app join the KDE project. I don't like the idea of extending it to others. > But this is all not technically important at all, since there will be two > VCS (Git and Subversion) for some time, so VCS modularization in Scripty on > app/module side should anyway be conducted to have reasonably clean code > (even if Scripty is one big hack all the way down). I really don't think this transitional period is going to take some time, though maybe I'm naive. :) We should also keep things pretty limited, eg only 1-3 apps transition to Git, followed by the mass transition. >> I have no clue about what to do with docs. :) Currently they are >> completely separate from Amarok so we don't have to tackle the issue >> immediately. (One bonus of Amarok switching first is that we can phase in >> needed solutions like that one-by-one). > > My strong personal opinion is that the original doc should be part of the > app, i.e. in its repository (with only open question of what one considers > "an app" in a core module, but that is a special case). I hope that would > improve the abysimal quality (doc made for the sake of requirement, rather > than for having something to say) and out-of-dateness (since the writer > wrote it only typos were fixed) that I'm encountering across the specter > while translating (haven't reached Amarok doc yet >:) This makes sense to me. However I worry about all the uncompressable PNGs bulking up the Git clones. Ian _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest