On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy & all, > > thanks for pushing this more forward! I so look forward to have Okteta > sources > in git :) and have been sorry we got stuck in summer with the migration. > > Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012, 18:03:07 schrieb Jeremy Whiting: > > Hello all, > > > > Thanks to some awesome students in Brazil we have most (maybe all) of the > > kdesdk migration rules written. > > Have to report that the Okteta rules are not complete yet, a branch is > missing > and the origin of the Okteta lib inside the KHexEdit subtree is missing > out as > well. The latter is quite complicate, at least I had failed when I tried to > write rules in summer. Would be happy to join the students work and see to > solve it together. > Ok, np, yes we should get the rules written/fixed asap, but if there's no decision about what belongs where that does indeed need to be solved first. > > Where can the current rules be found? And could you please pass this email > forward to Willian A. Mayan who wrote the Okteta rules, so we can get in > contact? > The rules are in the kde-ruleset git repo under the kdesdk folder. I had (apparently falsely) assuming the content of http://community.kde.org/KDESDK/Git_Migration#Process was correct and the decision about the layout had been solved. This e-mail and the previous one make me wonder if that's still something we need to work out. > > And a more general question: > > I see that last thursday on the wiki page for the migration you turned the > entry "Decide which repos should be created from which submodules" from "IN > PROGRESS" to "DONE". Hm. The very email you used to pick up the discussion > again was still about how the split up should be done, and by that time it > was > e.g. decided that the po/ts/xlf strigi-analyzers and the po thumbnailer > join > the lokalize repo. So has that and the other pending decisions been > reverted > meanwhile? Or did you miss this discussion, because the "Module Splitup" > section looked like it's done (missing any "Warning, in discussion")? > Yep, I marked that as done because what I read in the "Module Splitup" section made me think it was a done decision. > > This non-straight-forward splitup of kdesdk was effectively what put a > stop to > the migration, as the rules became more complicated... > > Cheers > Friedrich >
_______________________________________________ kde-sdk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-sdk-devel
