Heads-up: kdeutils is moving to git

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Sunday, August 21, 2011 17:29:22 you wrote:
> Do you realize how few people workon doing the thankless and unsexy job of
> making these moves happen(I'm not among them, so I'm not defending myself
> here) and that itsucks when their motivation gets threatened further by this
> kindof response?

i apologize if that is how this came across. my goal is and was not to 
discourage or berate those working on the git migration.

rather, i'm very aware of the challenges those trying their best to keep up 
with KDE development are faced with. i am doing my best to ensure they do not 
fall behind and away, as has happened previously.

i do not expect those doing the migration to produce the solution, but to 
perhaps give us the time to create them as they need to be. i've communicated 
in the past what is needed, and those recommendations are based on actual 
feedback from and interactions with new and old contributors who are failing 
to keep up with our move to git. while our migrations are opening new 
horizons, it's also closing existing ones and that's something we can improve 
on.

kdesrc-build was recommended again .. i took the time tonight (after a long 
day in Taipei working on behalf of KDE) to examine it "from scratch" again. 

first the good news: it took me less time to set up this time than in the 
past, so it is indeed improving. there is no doubt that it is an impressive 
tool.

what we need to put the bar low enough:

* a script / tool to set up kdesrc-build. the config file is much clearer now, 
but there are too many little details that require knowledge of how things 
work and/or are easy to overlook. a tool that asks questions like "Where 
should KDE software be installed?", "Do you have a commit account for KDE?", 
etc. and forms an appropriate config file would pull this tool to within reach 
of just about everyone

* a simple recipe on techbase.kde.org stating that this is how to build KDE 
modules as a casual observer / follower

* some small adjustments, such as not following qt-kde in our git repo, but 
upstream qt, noting when an optional dependency is missing (looking at the 
perl code, this looks like it should be easy enough)

i'm very hestitant to say "i will do this" as i'm already extremely overloaded 
with Active and my other responsibilities. however, none of the above is 
overly difficult, so there is the possibility i will do so. don't let that 
stop anyone else.

please keep in mind this is about ensuring our existing and potential 
contributors can continue to follow what we are doing. it is not a random 
complaint, nor is it a dodge on the work being done on the git migrations. 
that work is, in itself, of high quality. how we present and make it available 
to our broader community is where we (as a community) need to improve on.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
-------------- 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/release-team/attachments/20110821/a72f49e8/attachment.sig>