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, 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
15 matches
Mail list logo
