El Monday 18 January 2016, a les 20:27:16, Boudewijn Rempt va escriure:
> 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
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 13:57:10 schrieb Ben Cooksley:
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
>>
>> wrote:
>> > 4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to imp
Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 13:57:10 schrieb Ben Cooksley:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
>
> wrote:
> > 4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software
> > Repository Organization" on this mailinglist.
>
Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 08:07:11 schrieb Elvis Angelaccio:
> 2016-01-19 2:05 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Alvarez :
> > 2016-01-18 21:57 GMT-03:00 Ben Cooksley :
> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >> So IMHO some update of the repository organisation
2016-01-19 2:05 GMT+01:00 Nicolás Alvarez :
> 2016-01-18 21:57 GMT-03:00 Ben Cooksley :
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So IMHO some update of the repository organisation would be good, to
> reflect
> >> how things are these days.
> >> Renaming of
2016-01-18 21:57 GMT-03:00 Ben Cooksley :
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
> wrote:
>
>> 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
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Boudewijn Rempt 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 organis
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
>
> (calligra-devel, kexi-devel, kimageshop mailinglists only for heads-up,
> please remove from reply, discussion only on kde-core-devel should be fine)
>
> 4 months ago there was the thread "Pr
On 18 January 2016 at 20:27, Boudewijn Rempt 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 organisatio
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/ re
Hi,
(calligra-devel, kexi-devel, kimageshop mailinglists only for heads-up,
please remove from reply, discussion only on kde-core-devel should be fine)
4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software
Repository Organization" on this mailinglist.
What happened to
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:15 PM, David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 23:36:33 Luigi Toscano wrote:
>> David Faure ha scritto:
>> > On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
>> >> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
>> >> have project hie
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote:
> David Faure ha scritto:
>> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
>>> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
>>> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
>>> r
On Sunday 16 August 2015 23:36:33 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> David Faure ha scritto:
> > On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> >> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> >> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 11:21:00 PM David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> > have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> > remains unique. It migh
David Faure ha scritto:
> On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
>> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
>> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
>> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there
On Sunday 16 August 2015 13:51:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> There's no reason even with our current build metadata that we'd *have* to
> have project hierarchies, as long as each underlying git repository name
> remains unique. It might even make things easier since there would be no way
> for a sub
On Sun, August 16, 2015 17:48:59 John Layt wrote:
> On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> > (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> > shouldn't be called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release
> > things. Nowadays we basically have 4 product
On 16 August 2015 at 11:14, David Faure wrote:
> (*) I keep finding the "division" term a bit obscure, and I wonder if this
> shouldn't be
> called "product" instead. I.e. matching how we release things. Nowadays we
> basically have 4 products (frameworks, plasma, applications, extragear?),
> pr
On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
>
> Overview of Proposed Fix
>
>
> What we would like to do instead is the classic Comp. Sci. fix: Another layer
> of indirection.
>
> In this case, we'd like to re-organize the `kde-build-metadata` to map to the
> sa
On Wed, August 20, 2014 00:48:36 Àlex Fiestas wrote:
> On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > We await your comments, suggestions, clarification requests, and other
> > feedback.
>
> The proposed solution will clearly help to improve the situation, so +1!
>
> Something I would
On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
> We await your comments, suggestions, clarification requests, and other
> feedback.
The proposed solution will clearly help to improve the situation, so +1!
Something I would like to explore is the possibility of putting on each
repository th
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Tue, August 19, 2014 10:18:17 David Faure wrote:
>> On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> > The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division /
>> > track combinations. They are otherwise not used.
>>
>> Ah
On Tue, August 19, 2014 10:18:17 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division /
> > track combinations. They are otherwise not used.
>
> Ah!
>
> > Just a clarification though: there would only be tw
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Michael Pyne wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ben Cooksley and I would like to get some feedback on further evolutions to
> the organization structure we employ for the repositories at git.kde.org,
> to
> allow our current usage of CI even as we move farther into the KF5-base
On Tuesday 19 August 2014 19:10:14 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> The old kf5-qt5 / latest-qt4 names are being mapped to division /
> track combinations. They are otherwise not used.
Ah!
> Just a clarification though: there would only be two divisions for the
> above scenario: Plasma5 and KF5.
> Plasma5 w
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:55 PM, David Faure wrote:
> Nice work.
Thanks.
>
> Just one thing:
>
> On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
>> So "kf5-qt5" might mean "KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Devel, etc." while
>> "kf5-qt5-stable" might mean "KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Stable, etc.".
>
> This
Nice work.
Just one thing:
On Monday 18 August 2014 21:54:40 Michael Pyne wrote:
> So "kf5-qt5" might mean "KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Devel, etc." while
> "kf5-qt5-stable" might mean "KF5/Devel, Plasma5/Stable, etc.".
This looks like an attempt to keep the current branch-group naming for
compatibi
Hi all,
Ben Cooksley and I would like to get some feedback on further evolutions to
the organization structure we employ for the repositories at git.kde.org, to
allow our current usage of CI even as we move farther into the KF5-based
world.
TL;DR: More indirection in our JSON in kde-build-meta
29 matches
Mail list logo
