On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:15 PM, David Faure 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 hie
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:36 AM, 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
>>> r
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
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 migh
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
>> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there
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 sub
On Sun, August 16, 2015 17:48:59 John Layt wrote:
> On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure 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 product
On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure 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, extragear?),
> pr
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
> sa
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Pyne 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.
>>
>> Ah
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 tw
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Michael Pyne 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 KF5-base
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 w
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM, David Faure 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
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
compatibi
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 kde-build-meta
16 matches
Mail list logo
