[Kde-scm-interest] Sysadmin advice regarding Monolithic vs Split repositories.

[Dominik Haumann]

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 the setup.
> > > To be clear: whatever you decide, we will implement it to the best
> > > of our capabilities.
> > 
> > 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 would mean to split out the part and
> > ktexteditor interfaces from kdelibs, which is already done in the
> > gitorious kate repo, which bundles part/app/kwrite and ktexteditor
> > interfaces for the part.
> 
> the way I read it, that wasn't part of the sysadmins' proposal; kdelibs
> was to be kept intact.

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 so easy to build Kate with just some 
commands - we really really would like to keep it that way [1].

And the good news is that nothing in kdelibs depends on Kate or the 
KTextEditor interfaces. So technically this is no issue.

Besides, Kate would continue to be released with KDE just like now, so it 
should be perfectly safe even if we have our own module :)

Hope that brought some light into it.
Dominik

[1] http://kate-editor.org/2010/06/24/a-flashback-of-kate-in-gitorious/