Kate App/Part/KWrite => kate.git

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dissabte, 29 de gener de 2011, Tom Albers va escriure:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Ok, so let's work on the issues, instead of declining it. Since KTextEditor
> remains in kdelibs, why is kate 'special'? Why can't we put it in
> extragear/utils ?

As far as I understood Cristoph idea was have a kate repo somewhere but on 
release stage Dirk would distribute the things as they are distributed now, 
e.g. katepart would end in kdelibs, kwrite in kdebase and kate in kdesdk. So 
if we put it in extragear/utils we are "lying" to our translators and to 
people that might use svn as source for their packages, etc.

Albert

> 
> Best,