On Saturday 05 March 2011 10:43:33 Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2011 16:21:16 Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> > having to do the pull, merge, pull --rebase (again) and then push dance.
> > (Because any push to a completely unrelated part of the big repo is going
>
On Thursday 03 March 2011 15:24:33 Ian Monroe wrote:
> To me kdegames is a textbook case for split repos: you have a very
> simple dependency graph and largely independent projects, both
> technically and socially.
>From real-world experience I'd also recommend this. It is much less painful to
ha
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 15:28:38 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> a) should CMake modules be moved up to kdelibs or down to the submodule
> that needs them?
Instead of uusing CMake modules, I have great experiences with using the
cmake-config system. Which means that it is each component that have t
On Thursday 10 June 2010 02:26:06 Eike Hein wrote:
> We're sharing it with you now - see the attachments to this mail -
> and hope you will agree that we have found a solid way forward for
> the KDE Git migration efforts.
Thank you. The attached document shows an impressive effort.
One worry: The
On Thursday 13 May 2010 00:12:06 Michael Jansen wrote:
> I just found http://www.indefero.net/ . Company backed and GPL code.
>
> Someone with more insight should have a look.
I had a look today. Frankly, it will not do. It does not support merge
request, but only has a rather poor code review f
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:10:44 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> We also need repositories connected to wikis. I don't like that the
> playground today is a mess of stuff no one knows about.
Sure, that would be nice, but we don't have that today. That makes it a nice-
to-have in my optics; besides, I d
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 17:36:49 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> Redmine or Retrovista would help there; when someone puts something in
> playground they need (social policy) to create a project for it and an
> associated wiki page.
Which will be empty, or outdated... :) Forcing people to create wikis fo
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 21:29:47 Jeff Mitchell wrote:
> This all said, we discussed a few alternatives in #kde-git and I was
> asked to put them on this list for discussion:
I know this is probably a stupid question, but since I can't see the answer,
perhaps other can't either. As far as I can see
On Friday 12 February 2010 11:42:31 Thomas Zander wrote:
> It looks like work on writing the rulesets has all but stopped[1], not sure
> if thats due to the reopening of this splitting issue.
Is there anything that hinders us in migrating first and splitting (if desired)
later? If not, why not p
On Friday 12 February 2010 11:59:59 Dmitry Suzdalev wrote:
> Everyone seems to love git and everyone wants the switch to happen for
> their beloved kde app, but somehow I fail to see how this kind of
> switching can help KDE main modules to switch. Actually seems it helps the
> opposite.
Could so
On Friday 29 January 2010 14:36:32 Matt Williams wrote:
> > In this way, we won't get a "big bang" split up + migration, which is
> > maybe too ambitious, and we would still get the ability to move
> > application from review+playground. And the atomicity problems goes away.
> > As for dependency h
On Friday 29 January 2010 08:59:04 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> great - you replaced git's suboptimal builtin submodule handling with a
> home-grown scripted solution which fails for everything but checking
> out (and possibly updatating). what a progress ...
>
Let me gather the arguments here:
*
On Sunday 13 December 2009 13:18:53 Eike Hein wrote:
> We need to decide how to go forward - put effort into
> a better tool, or into the ruleset - and then somehow
> divvy up the work (everyone adopts a module? we try
> to get maintainers in on the job of writing rules for
> their stuff?) and get
On Saturday 12 December 2009 19:02:14 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> imagine such a message from the pre-receive hook:
[...]
I, for one, hope that such will never get widespread within KDE. It will
certainly not be welcome in "my" little corner of KDE.
-1
--
Kind regards, Esben
On Saturday 12 December 2009 10:31:26 Thomas Zander wrote:
> Can we agree that;
> a) we want all devs to be able to determine themselves which emails they
> get? b) we want all devs to be able to commit to any kde-developers owned
> repo and likewise, we want all devs to be able to comment on and
On Thursday 10 December 2009 19:24:13 Chani wrote:
> gitorious currently doesn't allow you to choose what mail you receive.
> everyone in the kde-developers group was getting amarok's merge request
> email, which was kinda annoying, especially with other projects talking
> about moving to git b
On Thursday 10 December 2009 15:23:13 Thomas Zander wrote:
> > and everyone should be happy until something yet better is
> > added to gitorious. the setup is as follows:
>
> Everyone should be happy because you think its the right solution, hmm,
> no. Not really. I know you are convinced of you
17 matches
Mail list logo
