Kate App/Part/KWrite => kate.git

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dissabte, 29 de gener de 2011, Albert Astals Cid va escriure:
> A Dissabte, 29 de gener de 2011, Christoph Cullmann va escriure:
> > On Sunday 16 January 2011 13:11:47 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > is it ok to now move that stuff to the kate.git for KDE 4.7?
> > > KTextEditor can reside in kdelibs, to keep BC /SC (I will sync it if
> > > changes occur).
> > > 
> > > This would remove:
> > > 
> > > kdelibs/kate
> > > kdesdk/kate
> > > kdebase/apps/kwrite
> > > 
> > > (and I guess the doc/.. stuff for the apps need to move and
> > > what-I-don't know i18n scripts + packaging must change)
> > > 
> > > But the part/application code really should be only in one place.
> > > Given that most people work only in kate.git, this will avoid my hassle
> > > with syncs, I will only keep syncing /trunk => git, to avoid any losses
> > > until this is done, thought.
> > 
> > As no reaction until now and kdelibs moves git now already, I intend to
> > move kate part out of kdelibs and only let it be in kate.git (same for
> > kwrite in kdebase and kate in kdesdk).
> > 
> > I propose the weekend 15.-16. Feb for the move (which more or less would
> > only be a delete in git/svn of the old copies).
> > 
> > I guess this needs coordination to have for example still working i18n
> > (as the docbooks would move too and the i18n stuff needs fixing).
> > Therefore CC Albert, would that date be ok for you to help me a bit with
> > this? Or should I delay and ask on i18n for help?
> > 
> > With kdelibs now being a git, it really is not that nice for contributors
> > of kate part to clone whole kdelibs...
> 
> I'm sorry but having an own repo for kate with all the stuff in there is a
> no go from the i18n point of view.

Let me be a bit more clear. It's a no go since it totally breaks the module 
concept KDE and thus KDE i18n has been using forever. That is, in which of 
this "packages" [ http://l10n.kde.org/stats/gui/trunk-kde4/team/ca/ ] do i 
extract the po files that originate from the kate repo?
As I see it, answers can be:
 * In a new top level "package" -> no go for me since kate is in no way more 
important than say k3b
 * Each file in a totally different "package" -> no go for me since it means 
having to add manually rules for each of the .po files you create from the 
kate repo

So this is why i think it's a no go, and why opossed ages ago already.

Albert

> 
> Albert
> 
> > Greetings
> > Christoph
> 
> _______________________________________________
> release-team mailing list
> release-team at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team