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?
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.
/Torgny
___
Kde-scm-interest mailing list
Kde-scm-interest@kde.or
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Tom Albers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:03:23 -0700, Chani wrote:
>> I've attempted to summarize this thread (plus a couple of irc comments)
>> here:
>> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/MoveToGit/Layout
>>
>> I'm sure I've missed a thing or two, so if you had p
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:03:23 -0700, Chani wrote:
> I've attempted to summarize this thread (plus a couple of irc comments)
> here:
> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/MoveToGit/Layout
>
> I'm sure I've missed a thing or two, so if you had points to make,
please
> go
> check that page and add them
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Chani wrote:
> I've attempted to summarize this thread (plus a couple of irc comments) here:
> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/MoveToGit/Layout
>
> I'm sure I've missed a thing or two, so if you had points to make, please go
> check that page and add them if they'r
I've attempted to summarize this thread (plus a couple of irc comments) here:
http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/MoveToGit/Layout
I'm sure I've missed a thing or two, so if you had points to make, please go
check that page and add them if they're missing :)
_
On September 8, 2010 13:32:19 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Chani wrote:
> > On September 8, 2010 03:21:38 zan...@kde.org wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 7. September 2010 18.04.40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > now I'm gonna play devil^Wsysadmin's advocate for a minute here ;)
> >
> > > Ig
On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Chani wrote:
> On September 8, 2010 03:21:38 zan...@kde.org wrote:
> > On Tuesday 7. September 2010 18.04.40 Tom Albers wrote:
> now I'm gonna play devil^Wsysadmin's advocate for a minute here ;)
>
> > Ignored disadvantages;
> > * having each app in koffice as a rep
>
> We gave an advise, and I personally hope we can all stop attacking the
> messengers and the timing and look at the document and discuss the problems
> it addresses.
>
I believe I made it clear that advice was only welcome in the form of a well-
researched proposal... oh, looking back, it
On September 8, 2010 03:21:38 zan...@kde.org wrote:
> On Tuesday 7. September 2010 18.04.40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > Our advise is to use a split repositories approach.
>
> Reading the pdf I'm left with the impression that you guys didn't read the
> archives of the scm ML. All of the disadvantages f
> I heard that before, and although I do agree with the general 'who does
> the work decides', I don't think it applies 100% here. k-c-d was not
> informed or I don't recall a call on blogs like 'hey we decided to go for
> git, please come now to discuss the git details', i don't recall blogs
> ex
On 2010-09-07, Dominik Haumann wrote:
> Christoph doesn't suggest to split kdelibs. All he suggests is to move
> kdelibs/kate and kdelibs/interfaces/ktexteditor to the own Kate module. We
> are practicing this for more than half a year now anyway, and have
> tremendous success with that. It's s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07-09-2010 16:04, 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
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:48:49 +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 September 2010, Tom Albers wrote:
>> Don't twist my words please. I've indicated that I assumed the list
>> was about bikeshedding about the tool, and never considered it to be
>> a decision making list. I still find the na
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 18:56:24 +0200
Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 8. September 2010 16.09.48 Ian Monroe wrote:
> > Glad to hear it though.
> > Certainly means that creating the rules file for monolithic repos
> > isn't less work then split repos, either way we have to track all
> > the proje
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 05:43:56 pm 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 the technical co
On Wednesday 8. September 2010 16.09.48 Ian Monroe wrote:
> Glad to hear it though.
> Certainly means that creating the rules file for monolithic repos
> isn't less work then split repos, either way we have to track all the
> project movement.
Wrong; the tracking of individual apps or tracking of
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 the technical consequences it will have. To turn this around: don't
> discourage us to
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:26:46 -0500
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > Why would this be easier? Use these rules in the above context but
>> > with a prefix if necessary.
>>
>> That doe
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:26:46 -0500
Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
[...]
> > Why would this be easier? Use these rules in the above context but
> > with a prefix if necessary.
>
> That doesn't work, I've tried and its a known thing.
Weird guess my rules
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:03:39 -0500
> Ian Monroe wrote:
>
> [...]
>> AFAIK, its impossible to have svn2git rules for a monolithic repo like
>> KDE Multimedia with submodules like Dragon Player produce complete
>> history. So I think we are misu
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:52:08 +0200, zan...@kde.org wrote:
> On Wednesday 8. September 2010 12.44.41 Tom Albers wrote:
>> And I again will point you that the fact that at least I was under the
>> impression that kde-scm-interest was a list about bikeshedding about
>> which scm we should choose. Whic
On Wednesday 8. September 2010 12.44.41 Tom Albers wrote:
> And I again will point you that the fact that at least I was under the
> impression that kde-scm-interest was a list about bikeshedding about
> which scm we should choose. Which I really don't care about. I never
> considered it the decisi
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 12:33:44 +0200, zan...@kde.org wrote:
> On Wednesday 8. September 2010 12.21.38 zan...@kde.org wrote:
>> Which effectively means 2 years of consensus
>> building and rule writing is thrown away.
>
> On IRC someone said that he was unaware there was a decision and
consensus.
>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:03:39 -0500
Ian Monroe wrote:
[...]
> AFAIK, its impossible to have svn2git rules for a monolithic repo like
> KDE Multimedia with submodules like Dragon Player produce complete
> history. So I think we are misunderstanding each other?
Why? What kind of change cannot svn2gi
On Wednesday 8. September 2010 12.21.38 zan...@kde.org wrote:
> Which effectively means 2 years of consensus
> building and rule writing is thrown away.
On IRC someone said that he was unaware there was a decision and consensus.
Here is the page on techbase which details our work;
http://techbase
On Tuesday 7. September 2010 18.04.40 Tom Albers wrote:
> Our advise is to use a split repositories approach.
Reading the pdf I'm left with the impression that you guys didn't read the
archives of the scm ML. All of the disadvantages for a monolithic approach
are incorrect and rebutted before.
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 01:48:48 am Chani wrote:
> > > > I agree on the general direction, the split approach just makes it
> > > > much more easy for people working on individual apps to contribute
> > > > by avoiding to clone everything.
> > > >
> > > > For Kate for example that still w
Thanks for this detailed analysis - I also think you choice is the
only way to go.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 22:50, Stefan Majewsky
wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2010 22:03:28 Chani wrote:
>> What I'm concerned about here is plasmoids: even if we go for split
>> repositories for apps (which I agr
>> And the good news is that nothing in kdelibs depends on Kate or the
>> KTextEditor interfaces. So technically this is no issue.
>>
>
> but don't kdebase and kdevelop depend on the katepart? that'd mean they'd have
> a dependency on kate as well as kdelibs... :/
kdevelop is not (yet :D) in kdelib
2010/9/8 Maciej Mrozowski :
> On Tuesday 07 of 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/
2010/9/7 Maciej Mrozowski :
> Thanks for investigation!
>
> I'd like to address some points, actually the one that monolithic layout
> breaks current application life cycle/workflow.
>
> It doesn't have to.
> Provided we forget about extragear or playground being actual repositories. If
> said plac
On September 7, 2010 13:15:17 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Chani wrote:
> > On September 7, 2010 11:35:28 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > > > The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so
>
On Tuesday 07 of 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 tec
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 22:03:28 Chani wrote:
> What I'm concerned about here is plasmoids: even if we go for split
> repositories for apps (which I agree would make for a much easier and less
> surprising kdereview workflow), it may be a bit excessive for every little
> plasmoid to have its o
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:03:28 -0700, Chani wrote:
> -would moving a project between monolithic repositories really be all
that
> bad? you say that the kdereview workflow would "no longer be possible" -
> but
> iirc, we were told before that moves would be possible, merely harder.
> What I'm conce
On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Chani wrote:
> On September 7, 2010 11:35:28 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > > The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so
> > > we ask this list to come up with a final decision about t
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 21:38:00 Chani wrote:
> On September 7, 2010 11:35:28 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > > The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so we
> > > ask this list to come up with a final decision
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Arno Rehn wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2010 21:09:12 Ian Monroe wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
>> > I agree that this makes the most sense, but I wonder how the kdepim
>> > module(s) (and others?) should handle this with regards
On September 7, 2010 09:04:40 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 technical
> co
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Tom Albers wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:09:12 -0500, Ian Monroe wrote:
>> One thing that is missing from the proposed solution is a way to keep
>> an up-to-date checkout of 'kdereview' or 'kdegames'. It's not a
>> difficult to think of a solution for it (we wer
On 09/07/2010 09:42 PM, Arno Rehn wrote:
> Once we have svn2git rules for a monolithic repo, we can use
> git-filter-branch
> to split off individual subdirectories.
You're ignoring inter-module moves there.
--
Best regards,
Eike Hein
___
Kde-scm-in
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 21:09:12 Ian Monroe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > I agree that this makes the most sense, but I wonder how the kdepim
> > module(s) (and others?) should handle this with regards to preserving
> > history in the conversion process.
>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 14:09:12 -0500, Ian Monroe wrote:
> One thing that is missing from the proposed solution is a way to keep
> an up-to-date checkout of 'kdereview' or 'kdegames'. It's not a
> difficult to think of a solution for it (we were kicking around an
> idea of having a script do this)
>
On September 7, 2010 11:35:28 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> > The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so we
> > ask this list to come up with a final decision about the setup. To be
> > clear: whatever you decide, we
>
> One thing that is missing from the proposed solution is a way to keep
> an up-to-date checkout of 'kdereview' or 'kdegames'.
I believe the answer to this is "use kdesvn-build" (or your build-script of
choice). :)
I switched to it myself this summer, and like it. it even gets along well with
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:04:40 +0200
> 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
On Tuesday 07 September 2010 18:04:40 Tom Albers wrote:
> The sysadmin team would like to setup the services real soon now, so we
> ask this list to come up with a final decision about the setup. To be
> clear: whatever you decide, we will implement it to the best of our
> capabilities.
I agree on
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:04:40 +0200
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
> techn
58 matches
Mail list logo
