Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

El Monday 18 January 2016, a les 20:27:16, Boudewijn Rempt va escriure: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > Reason that I ask is that due to the split of Calligra into several repos > > (see background^) the layout in the repo structure does no longer > > properly reflect

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software >> > Repository Organization" on this mailinglist. >> > What happened to that plan? Are people preparing its execution? >> >> That plan is tied up in other things taking priority / lack of time /

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 13:57:10 schrieb Ben Cooksley: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau > > <kosse...@kde.org> wrote: > > 4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software > > Repository Organization" o

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 08:07:11 schrieb Elvis Angelaccio: > 2016-01-19 2:05 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Alvarez : > > 2016-01-18 21:57 GMT-03:00 Ben Cooksley : > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau > > > > > >

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

2016-01-19 2:05 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Alvarez : > 2016-01-18 21:57 GMT-03:00 Ben Cooksley : > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau > > wrote: > > > >> So IMHO some update of the repository organisation would be

State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

Hi, (calligra-devel, kexi-devel, kimageshop mailinglists only for heads-up, please remove from reply, discussion only on kde-core-devel should be fine) 4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization" on this mailinglist. What happened to

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software > Repository Organization" on this mailinglist. > What happened to that plan? Are people preparing its execution? That plan is tied up in other things taking priority / lack of time / etc. We'll get there eventually. It is also

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > >> Reason that I ask is that due to the split of Calligra into several repos >> (see background^) the layout in the repo structure does no longer properly >> reflect

Re: State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

On 18 January 2016 at 20:27, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > Reason that I ask is that due to the split of Calligra into several repos >> (see background^) the layout in the repo structure does no longer properly >> reflect the

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:15 PM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: On Sunday 16 August 2015 23:36:33 Luigi Toscano wrote: David Faure ha scritto: On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote: There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to have project

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Luigi Toscano luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it wrote: David Faure ha scritto: On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote: There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Sunday 16 August 2015 23:36:33 Luigi Toscano wrote: David Faure ha scritto: On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote: There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote: Overview of Proposed Fix What we would like to do instead is the classic Comp. Sci. fix: Another layer of indirection. In this case, we'd like to re-organize the `kde-build-metadata` to map to the same types

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: (*) I keep finding the division term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this shouldn't be called product instead. I.e. matching how we release things. Nowadays we basically have 4 products (frameworks, plasma, applications,

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Sun, August 16, 2015 17:48:59 John Layt wrote: On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: (*) I keep finding the division term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this shouldn't be called product instead. I.e. matching how we release things. Nowadays we basically have 4

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 11:21:00 PM David Faure wrote: On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote: There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name remains unique. It might even

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote: There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name remains unique. It might even make things easier since there would be no way for a

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

Nice work. Just one thing: On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote: So kf5-qt5 might mean KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Devel, etc. while kf5-qt5-stable might mean KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Stable, etc.. This looks like an attempt to keep the current branch-group naming for compatibility and

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: Nice work. Thanks. Just one thing: On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote: So kf5-qt5 might mean KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Devel, etc. while kf5-qt5-stable might mean KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Stable, etc.. This looks

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote: The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division / track combinations. They are otherwise not used. Ah! Just a clarification though: there would only be two divisions for the above scenario: Plasma5 and KF5. Plasma5 would

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org wrote: Hi all, Ben Cooksley and I would like to get some feedback on further evolutions to the organization structure we employ for the repositories at git.kde.org, to allow our current usage of CI even as we move farther into the

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Tue, August 19, 2014 10:18:17 David Faure wrote: On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote: The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division / track combinations. They are otherwise not used. Ah! Just a clarification though: there would only be two

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org wrote: On Tue, August 19, 2014 10:18:17 David Faure wrote: On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote: The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division / track combinations. They are otherwise not used.

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote: We await your comments, suggestions, clarification requests, and other feedback. The proposed solution will clearly help to improve the situation, so +1! Something I would like to explore is the possibility of putting on each repository the

Re: Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

On Wed, August 20, 2014 00:48:36 Àlex Fiestas wrote: On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote: We await your comments, suggestions, clarification requests, and other feedback. The proposed solution will clearly help to improve the situation, so +1! Something I would like to

Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization

Hi all, Ben Cooksley and I would like to get some feedback on further evolutions to the organization structure we employ for the repositories at git.kde.org, to allow our current usage of CI even as we move farther into the KF5-based world. TL;DR: More indirection in our JSON in