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

[Chani]

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
> > > > 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

I ... don't see how moving something out of kdelibs isn't splitting kdelibs :)

> 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.
> 

but don't kdebase and kdevelop depend on the katepart? that'd mean they'd have 
a dependency on kate as well as kdelibs... :/

anyways, I'm getting offtopic. it just concerns me a bit, kate being split off 
from the rest of kde like that..