Moving to git.kde.org open

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 18.10.10 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.

+1 from my side too (though of course you're really free to start
ignoring me by now, I won't be mad at you).

> 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 don't think there are many other 'projects' that have multiple things
in playground. I'm not sure what plasma team is planning wrt. splitting
their modules, but thats about the only one that comes to my mind where
there are plugins in playground for. 

For all others they'd just start off as a single project in redmine +
git repo and when they want to join one of the main modules they'd
either need to be imported (in case the module is 1 repo) or just the
redmine project hierarchy changes to include that project into the
module. For example if a new game starts off its just 'some' top-level
project, then moves into the kdereview project and last into the
kdegames project (or the extragear project if that is being setup).

IMHO the exact name isn't much of a deal, as long as it clearly states:
This is experimental, possibly-broken, eats-your-kitten stuff. 

Oh and I don't think we need to hurry with moving from svn to git (i.e.
the playground plugins), those plugins should be moved once someone
wants to work on them (or until KDE is starting to shut down svn
infrastructure, which I think is still at least a year in the future).
And if they do move I think for most there are rules already and for
those that don't have them 90% of the svn->git conversion rules are
easy, just those that moved around a lot or where assembled of bits and
pieces are going to be problematic.

Andreas

-- 
Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.