Separating everything ?

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

I was preparing a reply but you beat me to it again. But that's cool, I 
trashed it and now my own reply can be shorter. :-)

On Wednesday 6 February 2013 23:04:48 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Wednesday 6 February 2013 20:12:49 Treeve Jelbert wrote:
> >> Why not create tier{1,2} repos immediately, if they can build
> >> standalone?
> > 
> > We're still moving classes in there. It's not yet ready for splitting.
> 
> Additionally, tier1 libraries might not remain tier1 libraries indefinitely.
> For example, there could be some future where it would make sense for
> kplotting to depend on karchive. Or a framework with a design flaw could
> lose the tier1 label (and gain the 'obsolete' label) and be replaced with a
> new library without such a flaw which gets the tier1 label.
> 
> That would mean that we'd have dependencies in tier1.git although we defined
> tier1 as 'no dependencies between the libraries'.
> 
> I'd like to see tier1 as more of a label that we assign at every release.
> This is similar to how Qt defines tier1 and tier2 platforms - that is
> platform 'support extent labels' can move in either direction from one
> release to the next.

Hear! Hear!

Yes, that's exactly the intent from the beginning. Currently we put stuff in a 
tierX repository, but that's really just a temporary oddity to help us cope 
with the kdelibs mess. It'll probably end up being just a test file in each 
repo indicating which tier and type they map to, or documented in a wiki.

> I support the idea of grouping multiple frameworks into a single repo, and
> I'm glad that that is the direction plasma frameworks is going.

Actually it's not the direction they're going. It's still a single plasma 
framework in that repo... it just happens that it has several libraries, 
plugins, etc. We never prevented that, and the folder policy is an expression 
of that.

Doesn't mean we're not splitting too fined grained sometimes, but I prefer we 
regroup later than the other way around.

> I don't know if the tiers are the right 'tectonic plates' to base that on
> though.

Definitely not IMO, that sounds rather artificial to me.

> I expect it will become more clear how we can group them when we have them
> split more, dependencies wise, within kdelibs.git.

My thinking as well. I think some (but not all) of the tier1 frameworks could 
be grouped into a single one (mainly the *addons ones) while others (like 
karchive should probably stand on their own).

But yeah bottom line is: it's OK if we still too fine grained, we'll figure 
out groups at some point.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

Sponsored by BlueSystems and KDAB to work on KDE Frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20130206/3ba2ae02/attachment.sig>