2016-06-22 14:41 GMT+03:00 Pali Rohár <pali.ro...@gmail.com>: > Hi! > > On Sunday 19 June 2016 19:02:30 4ernov wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I continue to step by step porting plugins and protocols to KF5 and have > > several suggestions on the process. I think, most of things should be > > discussed with Pali, but anyone interested is welcomed to this > discussion. > > Great! > > > 1. I found quite useful to port plugins in separate branches. This allows > > to separate changes belong to different plugins, review the necessary > > changes for a concrete plugin and simply concentrate better on the plugin > > under construction. So, the question is whether this approach is desired, > > given that I'll commit these branches to main repository (or maybe it > > should have as few branches as possible). > > I have no problem with this. If other people will be able to find > changes... >
Yes, thank you. So I've just uploaded three branches I already have, for bonjour, jabber protocols and history plugin. I think, the idea is to have them available for reviewing/looking through for now and then merge, when all the rest is ready (e.g., when turning master to KF5 version, but also may be earlier). > 2. If (1) is fine, Pali, may I ask to synchronize Jabber protocol branch > as > > soon as I create it (I'll post on this, again, if 1 would be decided OK) > to > > get Jabber protocol compiled against KF5/Qt5? > > Ok, I will look at it. > Yes, I've just pushed this branch for jabber protocol, it's called "kf5-jabber-iris" and it actually contains all the necessary changes to have Jabber protocol be compiled and used but the change in libiris. So, Pali, could you please sync the clone of master branch of https://github.com/psi-im/iris with the necessary change included? > 3. This approach is also make it handy to review the changes necessary for > > certain plugin to be ported. In my opinion, this review won't take much > > time, as typically most of changes are kde-dev-scripts-guided or some > usual > > things. Unfortunately, I don't know, how to push a whole branch to KDE > > reviewboard easily, but anyway, one could just look at the branch > changes. > > Reviewboard supports reviewing just one patch/diff/commit. So you can > create either one bug patch or hundreds small. I would prefer to send > that big one with link to smaller git commits or git branch. > Yes, I'll think of it and yes, maybe one big patch per branch. > > Here's also my list of plugins and protocols yet to be ported: > > - groupwise > > No idea if there is any user of groupwise protocol. I have also no idea > if it is still working or not. > Yes, I also didn't noticed it use, too. But what is the scenario for this unsupported plugins? Can we just drop this code in the branch (looks good for keeping the whole project smaller, I still not too comfortable with it due to the amount of code, to be honest) or keep it as-is (unported) or something else? > > > - qq > > IIRC current qq protocol is not working anymore, so do not spend time on > it. > Ok. > > - winpopup > > Depends on samba and smbclient and should still works (after correct > installation). But do not know if it is useful today. > > It is implementation of Windows 2000 comamnd "net send" and is > compatible (via Samba) with those Windows systems. > I hope, I can test it with Windows machine, but yes, I see these arguments. > > > - webpresence > > - skype > > No idea if skype is still working... As it was designed for Skype 2.x > versions. So I would suggest you to first check and then decide if > porting or not. > Well, as for Skype, I would prefer to drop it, since as far, as I know (and have experienced) the original Skype itself doesn't work properly on Linux, such as no support for conferences or some call types. Since it appears to be a wrapper around, perhaps, it would require even more efforts to debug... > > - statistics > > - history2 > > I would drop History2 from Kopete. So if it is not ported yet, maybe it > make sense to not port it... > Yes, I'll look at it, but I personally use Kopete history quite intensively and an option to just look at XML log in any text editor mean very much for me, and a dialog with chat log was also very useful. As I've ported history plugin, I've got my log files appending back, but no dialogs. What is the difference between history and history2? Are all these additional history-aware dialogs in history2? > Also history plugin and bonjour protocol is already ported, but I'd like > to > > see the decision on (1) to know, how to push the code properly. > > History plugin is nor now needed, we do not have any better replacement > yet. > Maybe, but I like it very much, and while it was quite easy to port and now just works (branch "kf5-history"), maybe we can keep it... > > -- > Pali Rohár > pali.ro...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > kopete-devel mailing list > kopete-devel@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel >
_______________________________________________ kopete-devel mailing list kopete-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel
