Moving to git.kde.org open

[Milian Wolff]

On Monday 18 October 2010 23:27:24 Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 October 2010 10:51:49 Niko Sams wrote:
> > > I think we should keep a similar layout as we have now, maybe the
> > > plugins better structured as that is now possible afaik:
> > > kdevelop "module"
> > > 
> > >   kdevplatform
> > >   kdevelop
> > >   quanta
> > >   plugins
> > >   
> > >     php
> > >     php-docs
> > >     ...
> > 
> > After a discussion on IRC it was made clear that we don't have a choice
> > but to
> > switch over to git.kde.org as otherwise the sysadmins would consider us
> > "not
> > KDE" and delete e.g. kdevelop from bugs.kde.org. Anyways, I think we all
> > agree
> > that we are KDE and that we do want to help avoid the fragmentization, so
> > lets
> > agree on the structure. Sho said we'd "certainly" have two weeks of time
> > and
> > I'd personally be willing to do the setup and talk with the admins
> > afterwards
> > to get it all done.
> > 
> > Anyways. back to our structure.
> > 
> > Two things I needed to learn today:
> > 
> > - projects can be arbitrarily nested in redmine
> > - the git clone urls won't be nested
> > 
> > So taking into account I propose this structure, with the git url id in
> > parens:
> > 
> > kdevelop "module"
> > 
> >  kdevplatform (kdevplatform.git)
> >  kdevelop (kdevelop.git)
> >  quanta (quanta.git)
> >  plugins
> >  
> >    php (kdev-php.git)
> >    php-docs (kdev-php-docs.git)
> >    ...
> >  
> >  experimental
> >  
> >    qmake (kdev-qmake.git)
> >    ...
> > 
> > Sho said that this structure would be possible and I quite like it as it
> > shows
> > everything kdev related in one tree.
> > 
> > So, any opposition? Better suggestions?

> I'm fine with it, it's mostly the same as nikos's anyway, with the
> difference of extra's.

true.

> Just to note it, using this structure would deprecate playground in favour
> of experimental, it's fine with me but it still requires some rule to get
> them all there. Also we should consider naming it playground for better
> coherence. What are other projects doing with their playground stuff?

I personally think the "special" location of playground is just done out of 
historical reasons. Since one cannot checkout all of kdevelop anyways, having 
the playground repositories show up there would imo be much better.

You are right though with naming it playground instead of experimental.

Bye
-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20101018/8e71a9c1/attachment.sig>