Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> But the important difference would not be the master branches, it would be
> the stable ones. The KDE repository of Phonon would have the branches that
> are released with KDE (4.0, 4.2 and 4.3 today), whereas the QtSW one would
> contain the branches that Qt releases
Ian Monroe wrote:
>Plus no one, until you here now (maybe?), has been proposing that KDE
>consider going away from having a canonical master branch.
Phonon is in kdesupport, so it's not technically part of KDE.
In any case, my proposal would be that the two repositories share more or
less the sa
On Thursday 22 January 2009, Ian Monroe wrote
about 'Re: [Kde-scm-interest] On Amarok Switching to Git':
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Again, this is Git: there is *NO* canonical, central, unique source.
>> Anyone's Git repository is as good as any other.
>
>Not eve
On 2009-01-23, Ian Monroe wrote:
> > This packager provides daily svn binary packages so I can't
> > rely on a stale official tarball releases. I need to ideally
> > track a single upstream GIT repo. The most trouble free one.
>
> How did you decide to use KDE's SVN repo of Phonon instead of the
>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Mark Constable wrote:
> This packager provides daily svn binary packages so I can't
> rely on a stale official tarball releases. I need to ideally
> track a single upstream GIT repo. The most trouble free one.
How did you decide to use KDE's SVN repo of Phonon ins
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Again, this is Git: there is *NO* canonical, central, unique source.
> Anyone's Git repository is as good as any other.
Not even the most hardened proponent of Linux-style decentralized
repos would agree with that last statement.
Plus no
On 2009-01-21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Again, this is Git: there is *NO* canonical, central, unique source.
> Anyone's Git repository is as good as any other.
Sure, but they may differ so which one is the most "right one"
to use at any point in time. This is not just a packagers issue,
if I want
Ian Monroe wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Mark Constable wrote:
>> On 2009-01-21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> Ian Monroe wrote:
>>> >> Shouldn't phonon still have just one home?
>>>
>>> There's no need for a central server. Remember, this is Git we're
>>> talking about :-)
>>>
>>> git.kde
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Mark Constable wrote:
> On 2009-01-21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Ian Monroe wrote:
>> >> Shouldn't phonon still have just one home?
>>
>> There's no need for a central server. Remember, this is Git we're talking
>> about :-)
>>
>> git.kde.org will be KDE's home for
On 2009-01-21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
> >> Shouldn't phonon still have just one home?
>
> There's no need for a central server. Remember, this is Git we're talking
> about :-)
>
> git.kde.org will be KDE's home for Phonon and labs.qtsoftware.com will be
> Qt's version of it.
Thiago Macieira wrote:
>It has also just occurred to me that Phonon is much smaller than Qt and
>much more recent, so it might be possible to get consent to publish the
>commits we have internally, then patch up history.
I've just written a 75-line perl script to do that (it extracted 494
commits
Ian Monroe wrote:
>>> The difference is that, regardless of git.kde.org support, we'll have
>>> a repository on labs.trolltech.com (or labs.qtsoftware.com when we
>>> get around to changing the name).
>>
>> Shouldn't phonon still have just one home?
>
>I should add: though labs.trolltech.com is a f
>> The difference is that, regardless of git.kde.org support, we'll have a
>> repository on labs.trolltech.com (or labs.qtsoftware.com when we get around
>> to
>> changing the name).
>
> Shouldn't phonon still have just one home?
I should add: though labs.trolltech.com is a fine place for that ho
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em Quinta-feira 22 Janeiro 2009, às 17:43:36, Ian Monroe escreveu:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > Em Sábado 17 Janeiro 2009, às 21:50:27, Ian Monroe escreveu:
>> >> So most Amarok devs use git-svn now, and
Em Quinta-feira 22 Janeiro 2009, às 17:43:36, Ian Monroe escreveu:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em Sábado 17 Janeiro 2009, às 21:50:27, Ian Monroe escreveu:
> >> So most Amarok devs use git-svn now, and there's a growing consensus
> >> that switching to Git would m
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em Sábado 17 Janeiro 2009, às 21:50:27, Ian Monroe escreveu:
>> So most Amarok devs use git-svn now, and there's a growing consensus
>> that switching to Git would make life easier. So I'd like to request
>> assistance and pointers on how t
Em Sábado 17 Janeiro 2009, às 21:50:27, Ian Monroe escreveu:
> So most Amarok devs use git-svn now, and there's a growing consensus
> that switching to Git would make life easier. So I'd like to request
> assistance and pointers on how to actually go about doing this.
We've also decided to switch
17 matches
Mail list logo
