On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Boudewijn Rempt <b...@valdyas.org> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > >> Reason that I ask is that due to the split of Calligra into several repos >> (see background^) the layout in the repo structure does no longer properly >> reflect the project organisation. Right now there are three active repos in >> the calligra/ repo substructure: >> "calligra" at "calligra/" >> "krita" at "calligra/krita" >> "kexi" at "calligra/kexi" > > > What I'm wondering is, where is this "structure" actually visible? Not in > > https://quickgit.kde.org/
Quickgit shows the raw git repository structure, which deliberately does not include the tree in it. > > or > > https://phabricator.kde.org/diffusion/ Eventually we'll have projects for each broader category (Multimedia, Graphics, etc) and repositories will be tagged for those. Phabricator will never provide a repository tree though (nor should it, the existing tree is a hell of a maintenance nightmare). > > I see it reflected in the old, to be discarded > > https://projects.kde.org/projects > > But where else? And what is it actually needed for? The build metadata depends on it, and it is used by: - The CI system - API / LXR / EBN - Scripty. - kdesrc-build > >> >> (("calligra" at "calligra/" confuses at least kdesrc-build, sent an email >> to mpyne about if moving it to "calligra/calligra" should fix it.)) >> >> Things that are not properly matching organization: >> * Krita starting with 3.* no longer is part of Calligra project >> (screws e.g. api.kde.org/bundled-apps-api/calligra-apidocs/ and also >> what people think to which project Krita belongs) >> * Calligra & Krita are nowhere different to KDevelop, Digikam & Co, >> so no reason to be in a complete own toplevel structure, >> rather should be in the same sub structure, i.e. "Extragear", >> like extragear/calligra/* and extragear/graphics/krita >> >> More, not only Calligra & Krita related: >> * "Extragear" is an awful grouping name for apps with individual >> release plans, a legacy term that no longer fits most of the apps >> in that substructure > > > It's ghastly -- almost insulting. It's perpetuating the fallacy that > there are core KDE projects and peripheral projects. I agree. Which is why i'd like to see the Extragear moniker dropped. If repositories are part of some broader release unit (like KDE Applications - even if this does have a better name) then they still need to visible as belonging to it though I think. > >> * "KDE Applications" is a misleading grouping name for apps with a >> central release plan, as if those with individual release plans >> are not "KDE" applications (as in, not done in the KDE community) > > > Horrible as well. > >> * a single category per app as needed by the current tree structure layout >> of the repos, like "office", "graphics", "utils", is rather awkward, >> many apps do not match exactly one or would match multiple categories > > > Honestly, the need to group repositories is, to me, so weird that I think it > would be best to adopt the following scheme: Note that "Frameworks", "KDevelop" and "KDE Telepathy" are all fairly logical groupings of repositories (and things would be completely unmanagable in so many ways if we didn't have these). > > a/amarok > a/... > ... > c/calligra > g/gcompris > k/krita > > And so on. It's meaningless as it is; it would be better to make that clear, > if grouping is really needed. > >> So IMHO some update of the repository organisation would be good, to >> reflect how things are these days. >> Renaming of "Extragear" and "KDE Applications" is surely something which >> needs care from promo/marketing/VDG people first to find if that makes sense >> at all and what a good solution would be. > > > That again begs the question: where is the "organization" which apparently > has > purely technical reasons visible to contributors and users? > >> (Being both maintainer of Okteta, which is in "KDE Applications", and >> meta-co- >> maintainer of Calligra, which is not, but still done in the very same KDE >> community, that current naming seems so wrong to me). >> >> But the actual names and grouping aside, for the pure technical renewing >> (which also involves all infrastructure like translation system, >> documentation, phabricator, etc), who is currently planning or working on >> what? >> So does it makes sense to wait some more, or should we assume the current >> organization stays for longer, and Calligra & Krita repos should be moved >> inside that organization for now? >> >> >> ^Some background about Calligra repo split, as things are slightly >> complicated: >> >> KRITA) The "krita" repo was split off, because Krita has finally become a >> full project of its own, separate from Calligra. A logical place for the >> krita repo in the KDE repo structure would perhaps have been somewhere in >> extragear, but at least due to the translators preferring to keep the string >> catalogs of Krita in the "calligra" module as before, for less work, the >> krita repo was for now put as submodule of "calligra/". >> >> KEXI) Kexi continues to be part of the Calligra project/subcommunity, but >> the Kexi developers preferred a small simple repo "kexi" of their own (for >> build time and size). So the placement at "calligra/kexi" makes perfect >> sense. >> >> OTHERAPPS) As the other Calligra apps (Braindump, Karbon, Sheets, Words, >> Stage, etc.) are more tightly coupled and the binary interfaces between >> libs, plugins & apps can still change every other week, for now no further >> repo splitting is planned (to ensure atomic commits on API changes), and >> they all stay in the existing "calligra" repo. >> >> >> Cheers >> Friedrich >> _______________________________________________ >> Krita mailing list >> kimages...@kde.org >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop > > > -- > Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
