[Kde-scm-interest] the permissions confusion

[Eike Hein]

On 12/13/2009 01:48 PM, Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> 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 started.
>>
> 
> We need to cut up this elephant. How small can we realistically cut it? Could 
> I convert Klipper by itself? How about kdelibs?

It's most easily divided by resulting git repository,
as you then can write a ruleset that focusses on grab-
bing everything that should be put into that reposito-
ry and how it should do that.

The extragear apps will be converted into individual
repositories, and that you can easily write a ruleset
targetting an extragear app alone has been proven by
Amarok and Konversation by now.

Nonetheless, even the rules for Amarok and Konversa-
tion already have some overlap, like the ignored I
put a "Ignore some upheaval in KDE's SVN history."
comment on:

http://gitorious.org/svn2git/kde-ruleset/blobs/master/konversation-rules

... so people working on converting extragear apps
need to communicate and share. The same is probably
even more true for playground which was reorganized
a few times iirc, so the rulesets for playground
items will all have to reflect that every time.

As far as the KDE core modules go, I believe we
still have no real decision on whether we should
make per-app repositories or per-module reposito-
ries. Some effort has been made to ask module main-
trainers for their preference. kdegames opted to
have everything in one repository. But it's not
clear whether that was an informed decision or
not (i.e. whether it was made really knowing git
and the consequences of such a decision).

kdelibs will probably be one single repository,
so writing a ruleset specifically for kdelibs
should be possible.


-- 
Best regards,
Eike Hein