Working together on NM09 support and cleaning Solid::Control

[Will Stephenson]

On Wednesday 18 May 2011 16:53:35 Lamarque Vieira Souza wrote:
> > My proposal:
> > 1. Branch master as the pre09 branch and copy libs/solid/control and
> > backend into it.
correction: all backends
> > 1.1 Tell downstreams not shipping NM09 to use this
> > 2. Remove Solid::Control from workspace
> > 3. Merge Lamarque's work into libnm-qt
> > 4. Port networkmanagement to libnm-qt
> > 5. Remove redundant abstractions
> > 6. Remove last kde-isms and push a Qt-only libnm-qt to NM git
> > 
> > This will give us a clean codebase and end the problem that workspace is
> > tied to particular NM releases.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
>         I do not think that can be done by KDE SC 4.7.0 without a lot of
> effort and as I said I am busy. 

To begin, 4.7.0 isn't an important deadline for this, since we can easily 
carry out my #1 (it doesn't matter what the branch it is in is called) and 
distros can ship that alongside 4.7.0 to support NM 0.8 with the status quo.  
Use of NM09 in distros is more interesting and the only distro to have shipped 
in (Fedora) has already done so and has it own solution. The next round of 
distro releases comes in the autumn by which time our NM09 support will be 
complete.

Assuming that our NM 0.9 support in the libnm-qt/solid::control/*nm09 layer is 
similar, just class renames and the new dbus API, the amount of work in either 
approach is about the same, and leaves us with less code in 4.7 to maintain 
than in 4.6, rather than more (in your approach).  That's my analysis. Where 
do you see the extra workload?

> I have spent more time than I should have
> in Plasma NM, some things in my life had been postponed to make that
> happen.

I reviewed all the commits of the last year recently and you've been doing 
amazing work yourself and in integrating others' work.  I'm personally very 
grateful for your personal sacrifices to make this happen.  I'm aware that 
you're starting a new job and will not have time, which is why I'm stepping up 
to help again.   

I don't want to go back to working on KNM alone but I do want to get the 
codebase clean and maintainable as we add NM09 support by implementing the 
plan from the Solid meeting.

>         #1 should be based in nm09 instead of master in my oppinion. In the
> future we will need to branch master to nm08 and move the NM-0.9 code to
> master, but not now.

Ok, just a branch name, we can do it either way around.

Will