Johannes Sixt wrote:
>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 bra
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 i
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
On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:45:47 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Finally, in personal repositories, anything goes. I keep all my branches
> in qt/tmacieirs-qt.git, to which I push with --mirror.
So do you prefer gitorious namespacing to github's?
I personally think that it makes more sense (at least f
Em Terça-feira 20 Janeiro 2009, às 16:49:35, Oswald Buddenhagen escreveu:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > All of them contain the imported history.
>
> ok.
> not that i understand the need for separate repositories for the
> "live" branches in the first place,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 10:35:48AM -0600, Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > anyway, note that the historic (cvs) branches in our svn repo are still
> > screwed up.
>
> What's messed up? We've gone this long without trouble. :)
>
lots of files are
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> All of them contain the imported history.
>>
> ok.
> not that i understand the need for separate repositories for the
> "live" branches in the first place, but whatever.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 08:52:23PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> All of them contain the imported history.
>
ok.
not that i understand the need for separate repositories for the
"live" branches in the first place, but whatever. :}
anyway, note that the historic (cvs) branches in our svn repo ar
> The important part here is: *if the crowd follows*. That's what I mean
> with earning trust points (and losing just as well) and it is the process
> that makes maintainers; basically, a vote by popularity.
That's all well and great, but off topic. I'm not trying to be rude,
but seriously, we ha
Michael Pyne schrieb:
> Do you bypass the guy who reviews your patches and instead submit it to
> the next higher guy? (Hint: NO, unless you've already cleared such behavior)
>
> What happens if someone in the chain becomes unavailable due to other
> more important committments (after all, the pro
On Monday 19 January 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Ian Monroe schrieb:
> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >> * should we use a patch-submission-and-review system? (probably not)
> >
> > no.
>
> Don't throw patch submission and review into the same bucket. I can
> underst
Robert Wohlrab wrote:
>On Monday 19 January 2009 19:44:33 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/mainline.git
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-42.git
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-41.git
>>
>> does this imply that no histori
On Monday 19 January 2009 10:45:14 Ian Monroe wrote:
> I'm not feeling so bad about the authenticity issue since thiago says
> that we could have a log of who is pushing what on the server side.
> Someone needs to talk to the sysadmins and ask how we could set up
> such a server.
it still requires
On Monday 19 January 2009 03:29:38 Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Has your change been reviewed? No. You just modified Amarok without
> consulting the ones who know it in and out. I'm aware that you know a lot
> about the codebase, and you are a core person as core can be, but
> by-passing the maintainers
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Robert Wohlrab wrote:
> On Monday 19 January 2009 19:44:33 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/mainline.git
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-42.git
>> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-41.git
>
On Monday 19 January 2009 19:44:33 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/mainline.git
> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-42.git
> > git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-41.git
>
> does this imply that no historic branches are imported?
Or m
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 06:45:47PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> git.kde.org:kdelibs/mainline.git
> git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-42.git
> git.kde.org:kdelibs/kde-41.git
>
does this imply that no historic branches are imported?
___
Kde-scm-interest mailing li
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:07 AM, wrote:
> So how can we move this project forward? Jeff volunteered to help set
> this up, and I'm available too. Have BKO and commit filter hooks been
> written yet?
>
> Casey
>
Well scripty is located in kde-common, the bash script 'makemessages'.
More of scrip
So how can we move this project forward? Jeff volunteered to help set
this up, and I'm available too. Have BKO and commit filter hooks been
written yet?
Casey
___
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
Kde-scm-interest@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listin
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Ian Monroe schrieb:
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>>> * should we use a patch-submission-and-review system? (probably not)
>>
>> no.
>
> Don't throw patch submission and review into the same bucket. I can
> unde
Em Segunda-feira 19 Janeiro 2009, às 13:09:02, Johannes Sixt escreveu:
> Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> > Like I said, it's a social problem.
> >
> > That's the way we've worked for 12 years and we see no reason to change
> > just because we're changing SCM.
> >
> > Now, if we decide that it is a good
Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> Like I said, it's a social problem.
>
> That's the way we've worked for 12 years and we see no reason to change just
> because we're changing SCM.
>
> Now, if we decide that it is a good thing to do, it might be a good
> opportunity to do it while we change SCMs. But
Em Segunda-feira 19 Janeiro 2009, às 09:29:38, Johannes Sixt escreveu:
> Has your change been reviewed? No. You just modified Amarok without
> consulting the ones who know it in and out. I'm aware that you know a lot
> about the codebase, and you are a core person as core can be, but
> by-passing t
Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Thiago Macieira schrieb:
>>> Ian Monroe wrote:
> * the unresolved issue of accountability
This is the main issue I see. I hear there are solutions though?
>>> We have to see whether Git notes solves the problem.
>> I still don't see a nee
Johannes Sixt wrote:
>Thiago Macieira schrieb:
>> Ian Monroe wrote:
* the unresolved issue of accountability
>>>
>>> This is the main issue I see. I hear there are solutions though?
>>
>> We have to see whether Git notes solves the problem.
>
>I still don't see a need for this. Just build a n
Ian Monroe schrieb:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> * should we use a patch-submission-and-review system? (probably not)
>
> no.
Don't throw patch submission and review into the same bucket. I can
understand that you want to dispense with patch submission. But if KD
Ian Monroe (2009-01-18 10:29 -0600) wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Robert Wohlrab wrote:
>> Please note that git tracks everything by its sha1. So rebasing a
>> branch will change its sha1's and you will get the same stuff as
>> above. So I would say nobody should have forced push r
Ian Monroe wrote:
>> Beyond that, I think all the other issues can be resolved "in conference"
>> with the Amarok developers. I know Thiago isn't volunteering, but I
>> *think* there are others on the list that may have time to discuss (and
>> possibly implement) this. I work a normal, US-Central
Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>>> * the unresolved issue of accountability
>> This is the main issue I see. I hear there are solutions though?
>
> We have to see whether Git notes solves the problem.
I still don't see a need for this. Just build a network of trust (or
better, make
Ian Monroe wrote:
>You don't see any benefit to having a project like Amarok try things
> out?
Of course I do.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Des
Ian Monroe wrote:
>> SVN externs are not a problem. They just die. Get rid of them right
>> now, on SVN (they are hurting you now because you're using git-svn).
>> SVN and Git users will thank you.
>
>Actually we already got rid of them. I was confused. :)
>
>Still we need to have this info recorde
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>>> I see both reasons as valid. However, I thought being "part of KDE"
>>> meant being maintained under the same source control. That said,
>>> Amarok survived fine being not "part of KDE" in the past and I think
>>> i
On Sunday 18 January 2009 20:21:15 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I, for one, would advocate for kdelibs to switch to Git[*]. That way, we
> force everyone to start using it and learning it.
Great idea (about learning)! As I feel that I know some git basics, but I
really miss the general flow feeling of
Ian Monroe wrote:
>> I see both reasons as valid. However, I thought being "part of KDE"
>> meant being maintained under the same source control. That said,
>> Amarok survived fine being not "part of KDE" in the past and I think
>> it could flourish there again.
>
>Amarok has been in KDE SVN sinc
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
> On Saturday 17 January 2009, Casey Link wrote
> about 'Re: [Kde-scm-interest] On Amarok Switching to Git':
>>Leo and I brought this topic up at a break a few minutes ago during
>>Camp KDE, and immediatel
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Robert Wohlrab wrote:
> On Sunday 18 January 2009 16:52:18 Ian Monroe wrote:
> [..]
>> > * who will have push rights? To which branches? Who can create branches?
>> > Which branches/repos will allow force-pushes?
>> Well everyone will have push rights. I don't kn
On Sunday 18 January 2009 16:52:18 Ian Monroe wrote:
[..]
> > * who will have push rights? To which branches? Who can create branches?
> > Which branches/repos will allow force-pushes?
> Well everyone will have push rights. I don't know what a force push is.
Normally you can only push if you do a
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>>* Scripty. Its somewhat of a mystery where it is and how this thing
>>works. :) So it just needs to clone the central git repo, and perhaps
>>use a stable branch in the future. It should commit the translation
>>files ba
A Dissabte 17 Gener 2009, Ian Monroe va escriure:
> 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.
>
> I understand from reading the archive
On Saturday 17 January 2009, Casey Link wrote
about 'Re: [Kde-scm-interest] On Amarok Switching to Git':
>Leo and I brought this topic up at a break a few minutes ago during
>Camp KDE, and immediately Chani and Thomas jumped in. We started
>discussing technical and social hurd
Hello,
Leo and I brought this topic up at a break a few minutes ago during
Camp KDE, and immediately Chani and Thomas jumped in. We started
discussing technical and social hurdles that have to be crossed before
all of KDE can ditch svn for good.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea
Ian Monroe wrote:
>* Scripty. Its somewhat of a mystery where it is and how this thing
>works. :) So it just needs to clone the central git repo, and perhaps
>use a stable branch in the future. It should commit the translation
>files back into SVN like it does currently, and make the commits with
>
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.
I understand from reading the archives that one thing holding the
switch to Git back is that its
58 matches
Mail list logo
