[Kde-scm-interest] New life in kdesdk-migration-to-git :) (was: Re: Layout of "lokalize" and "kompare" git repos with plugins integrated (was: Re: Forming repos by plugin type or code domain?))

[Jeremy Whiting]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
<kossebau at kde.org>wrote:

> Hi Jeremy & all,
>
> thanks for pushing this more forward! I so look forward to have Okteta
> sources
> in git :) and have been sorry we got stuck in summer with the migration.
>
> Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2012, 18:03:07 schrieb Jeremy Whiting:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Thanks to some awesome students in Brazil we have most (maybe all) of the
> > kdesdk migration rules written.
>
> Have to report that the Okteta rules are not complete yet, a branch is
> missing
> and the origin of the Okteta lib inside the KHexEdit subtree is missing
> out as
> well. The latter is quite complicate, at least I had failed when I tried to
> write rules in summer. Would be happy to join the students work and see to
> solve it together.
>

Ok, np, yes we should get the rules written/fixed asap, but if there's no
decision about what belongs where that does indeed need to be solved first.

>
> Where can the current rules be found? And could you please pass this email
> forward to Willian A. Mayan who wrote the Okteta rules, so we can get in
> contact?
>

The rules are in the kde-ruleset git repo under the kdesdk folder.  I had
(apparently falsely) assuming the content of
http://community.kde.org/KDESDK/Git_Migration#Process was correct and the
decision about the layout had been solved.  This e-mail and the previous
one make me wonder if that's still something we need to work out.

>
> And a more general question:
>
> I see that last thursday on the wiki page for the migration you turned the
> entry "Decide which repos should be created from which submodules" from "IN
> PROGRESS" to "DONE". Hm. The very email you used to pick up the discussion
> again was still about how the split up should be done, and by that time it
> was
> e.g. decided that the po/ts/xlf strigi-analyzers and the po thumbnailer
> join
> the lokalize repo. So has that and the other pending decisions been
> reverted
> meanwhile? Or did you miss this discussion, because the "Module Splitup"
> section looked like it's done (missing any "Warning, in discussion")?
>

Yep, I marked that as done because what I read in the "Module Splitup"
section made me think it was a done decision.


>
> This non-straight-forward splitup of kdesdk was effectively what put a
> stop to
> the migration, as the rules became more complicated...
>
> Cheers
> Friedrich
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20121216/f5da03b0/attachment.html>