On September 7, 2010 13:15:17 Dominik Haumann wrote: > On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Chani wrote: > > On September 7, 2010 11:35:28 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote: > > > > The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so > > > > we ask this list to come up with a final decision about the setup. > > > > To be clear: whatever you decide, we will implement it to the best > > > > of our capabilities. > > > > > > I agree on the general direction, the split approach just makes it much > > > more easy for people working on individual apps to contribute by > > > avoiding to clone everything. > > > > > > For Kate for example that still would mean to split out the part and > > > ktexteditor interfaces from kdelibs, which is already done in the > > > gitorious kate repo, which bundles part/app/kwrite and ktexteditor > > > interfaces for the part. > > > > the way I read it, that wasn't part of the sysadmins' proposal; kdelibs > > was to be kept intact. > > Christoph doesn't suggest to split kdelibs. All he suggests is to move > kdelibs/kate and kdelibs/interfaces/ktexteditor to the own Kate module. We
I ... don't see how moving something out of kdelibs isn't splitting kdelibs :) > are practicing this for more than half a year now anyway, and have > tremendous success with that. It's so easy to build Kate with just some > commands - we really really would like to keep it that way [1]. > > And the good news is that nothing in kdelibs depends on Kate or the > KTextEditor interfaces. So technically this is no issue. > but don't kdebase and kdevelop depend on the katepart? that'd mean they'd have a dependency on kate as well as kdelibs... :/ anyways, I'm getting offtopic. it just concerns me a bit, kate being split off from the rest of kde like that.. _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest