On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:46 AM Nate Graham <n...@kde.org> wrote: > > If I'm understanding things, we have solutions to most or all of the > objections raised so far: > > - Projects will be allowed to live in--or at least appear in--multiple > top-level groups (e.g. plasma-framework could appear in both the > Frameworks top-level group and also the Plasma top-level group)
Projects will have the option to appear in multiple groups yes. > > - kdesrc-build and other scripts can be updated to allow people to > easily check out repos using git prefixes (e.g. so that something like > `git clone kde:dolphin` will still work regardlyss of a project's > underlying group) The syntax will probably be slightly different to that, but the concept is correct yes. > > - cgit will continue to exist for three weeks to provide some transition > time Correct. > > - Each repo can have its own workboard in addition to the single > group-level workboard Correct, just one small clarification: each project (repository) can have multiple workboards, there is no limit to this. Groups are limited to a single workboard. > > If the above are accurate, then I firmly support the proposal. > > As for the actual grouping, I think it makes sense to have top-level > groups for Frameworks, Plasma, PIM, etc. as originally proposed. I can > support putting apps into category-specific groups (e.g. Multimedia, > Office, Graphics, Games, etc) as long as apps could appear in multiple > groups if needed for the case of apps that logically span boundaries > (e.g. repos for PlaMo apps could appear in both the Plasma Mobile > top-level group and also the relevant app group). > > > Nate Cheers, Ben