On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Stefan Majewsky
wrote:
> On Thursday 09 September 2010 16:43:36 George Goldberg wrote:
>> kdenetwork (I don't know about other modules, but there may be others)
>> doesn't have any libraries at all within it (unlike the libkdegames
>> library used in multiple place
On Thursday 09 September 2010 16:43:36 George Goldberg wrote:
> kdenetwork (I don't know about other modules, but there may be others)
> doesn't have any libraries at all within it (unlike the libkdegames
> library used in multiple places throughout kdegames). It is simply 5
> totally unconnected a
On Thursday 9. September 2010 16.43.36 George Goldberg wrote:
> kdenetwork (I don't know about other modules, but there may be others)
> doesn't have any libraries at all within it (unlike the libkdegames
> library used in multiple places throughout kdegames). It is simply 5
> totally unconnected a
On 9 September 2010 14:33, Ian Monroe wrote:
> I'm not really sure if I agree with 'module sovereignty' here. :)
>
> But I overall agree with your point of course. We could create a list
> of which repos are to be split (and how they are to be split), and
> then take this to k-c-d. Basically repos
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Arno Rehn wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
>> Dear Scm-interest,
>>
>> As promised, the people behind the sysadmin team would like to give advice
>> regarding the monolithic vs split repositories issues. We have tried to
>> stay away
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:37:20 +0100
George Goldberg wrote:
[...]
> In summary, perhaps a one-size fits all approach is not what's needed
> here. For example, a repository containing all of the Kontact suite
> (kdepim) and separate repositories for the standalone applications
> Kopete, KGet, KRfb et
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> Dear Scm-interest,
>
> As promised, the people behind the sysadmin team would like to give advice
> regarding the monolithic vs split repositories issues. We have tried to
> stay away from the community/social issues and focus on the techni
2010/9/8 Ingo Klöcker :
> On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Ian Monroe wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Tom Albers wrote:
>> > Again, we advise you to go for a split approach, if the list does
>> > not want that, it is fine. Just solve the problems we address in
>> > the document and accept
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 02:22:10 -0700
Chani wrote:
> On September 8, 2010 22:37:27 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:14:51 -0500
> > Ian Monroe wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > Could you post the proposed split layout somewhere? Especially for
> > > kdebase and kdepim.
> >
> > For kdepim I'
On September 8, 2010 22:37:27 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:14:51 -0500
> Ian Monroe wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Could you post the proposed split layout somewhere? Especially for
> > kdebase and kdepim.
>
> For kdepim I've added it to the page.
>
I'm curious, why pim and pim-runtime?
10 matches
Mail list logo
