Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Den 06-10-2011 20:44, Cosimo Cecchi skrev:
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
seemed to work for me:
$ cd po/
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
$ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
Hi Stef,
thanks for the tip, that worked perfectly!
Cosimo
Hey guys, sorry about the late reply but I've been on vacation.
Are you guys sure? The command above assumes that all lines in the
obsolete part of the file starts with #~ but that is not always the
case. Translator-written comments for the strings that were obsoleted
are kept and they don't have the #~ prefix, (which is a dam... mess for
writing parsers for the format btw[1]). I'm not sure if it is a problem,
but that means that the sed command above potentially leaves hanging
comments, but maybe the second intltool-update removes those.
Alternatively, msgattrib appearently knows about this oddity (caveat),
so the sed command might be replaced with a command like this:
for po in *.po; do cat $po|msgattrib --no-obsolete -o $po;done
Regards Kenneth
[1] See comment 3 in this bugreport:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pyg3t/+bug/848950
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On 2011-10-12 19:12, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
Den 06-10-2011 20:44, Cosimo Cecchi skrev:
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
seemed to work for me:
$ cd po/
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
$ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
Hi Stef,
thanks for the tip, that worked perfectly!
Cosimo
Hey guys, sorry about the late reply but I've been on vacation.
Are you guys sure? The command above assumes that all lines in the
obsolete part of the file starts with #~ but that is not always the
case. Translator-written comments for the strings that were obsoleted
are kept and they don't have the #~ prefix, (which is a dam... mess for
writing parsers for the format btw[1]). I'm not sure if it is a problem,
but that means that the sed command above potentially leaves hanging
comments, but maybe the second intltool-update removes those.
Yeah, that's what it seems like.
Alternatively, msgattrib appearently knows about this oddity (caveat),
so the sed command might be replaced with a command like this:
for po in *.po; do cat $po|msgattrib --no-obsolete -o $po;done
Good to know.
Stef
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On 2011-09-30 00:04, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 23:33 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
Speaking of size of po-files. As we have already established, bringing
translation over should be relatively easy, since by copying them over
and updateing, the relevant translations will be kept and the rest will
become obsoletes. But maybe this would be a good time to also strip all
the obsoletes after the update, since there will be many strings there
that we don't seriously hope to reuse, since they were from different
modules.
Yeah agreed...if you have any ideas on how to do this (update + remove
obsoletes) automatically, it would be nice to do it before pushing the
separate repositories.
You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
seemed to work for me:
$ cd po/
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
$ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
Cheers,
Stef
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
seemed to work for me:
$ cd po/
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
$ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
Hi Stef,
thanks for the tip, that worked perfectly!
Cosimo
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011, à 14:35 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi a écrit : Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I feel like I'm missing all the fun! :P) Are you seriously considering dropping tags with such cool names? Man, I won't talk to you anymore -- ever. ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote: Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011, à 14:35 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi a écrit : Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I feel like I'm missing all the fun! :P) Are you seriously considering dropping tags with such cool names? Man, I won't talk to you anymore -- ever. ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list Yeah, listen to this guy, he's a real CERTIFIED_GNOMIE. -- Jasper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Cosimo Cecchi cosi...@gnome.org wrote: Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I feel like I'm missing all the fun! :P) I would say you're too young to understand are you're going to upset all the all fart who know what does it means :) -- Baptiste Mille-Mathias Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés [w] http://damnpeople.fr ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Den 28-09-2011 18:13, Cosimo Cecchi skrev: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong. Forgot to mention this in the previous mail, but I made sure the repositories have no stale old stuff in them. I purged all the tags/branches and ran extensive GC on the filtered repos. If you clone the repos from github, you'll see they're pretty small indeed, with most of the space being taken up by the translation .po files. Speaking of size of po-files. As we have already established, bringing translation over should be relatively easy, since by copying them over and updateing, the relevant translations will be kept and the rest will become obsoletes. But maybe this would be a good time to also strip all the obsoletes after the update, since there will be many strings there that we don't seriously hope to reuse, since they were from different modules. Regards Kenneth Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 23:33 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote: Speaking of size of po-files. As we have already established, bringing translation over should be relatively easy, since by copying them over and updateing, the relevant translations will be kept and the rest will become obsoletes. But maybe this would be a good time to also strip all the obsoletes after the update, since there will be many strings there that we don't seriously hope to reuse, since they were from different modules. Yeah agreed...if you have any ideas on how to do this (update + remove obsoletes) automatically, it would be nice to do it before pushing the separate repositories. In my experiments, launching intltool-update from the po/ directory of the module only seems to comment out obsolete translations. Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 17:04 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: If there are no objections to this, I will try to setup the git magic needed to filter out the submodules from the repository without losing history and proceed to do the split soon after 3.2 is released. Thoughts? Hi again, I went ahead and did the module split grunt work. [1] has preview git repositories for standalone modules; I made sure every module passes distcheck and everything seems to work fine so far. Additional testing and feedback from the module maintainers is very welcome at this point...I will probably push these to git.gnome.org next week if there are no issues. [1] https://github.com/cosimoc Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
hi Olav; I just checked, and the tags and branches haven't been imported in the split repositories. those are the usual suspects for repos being overblown. ciao, Emmanuele. sent from my phone, sorry for the formatting. On 28 Sep 2011 17:04, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote: On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I went ahead and did the module spl... Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I went ahead and did the module split grunt work. [1] has preview git repositories for standalone modules; I made sure every module passes distcheck and everything seems to work fine so far. Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong. -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong. Forgot to mention this in the previous mail, but I made sure the repositories have no stale old stuff in them. I purged all the tags/branches and ran extensive GC on the filtered repos. If you clone the repos from github, you'll see they're pretty small indeed, with most of the space being taken up by the translation .po files. Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 17:08 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Olav; I just checked, and the tags and branches haven't been imported in the split repositories. those are the usual suspects for repos being overblown. Tags in git need minimal space (which was different with subversion), and those could be useful in the future (ie. if you need to contact authors from x.y version to now). -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13:33PM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong. Forgot to mention this in the previous mail, but I made sure the repositories have no stale old stuff in them. I purged all the tags/branches and ran extensive GC on the filtered repos. If you clone the repos from github, you'll see they're pretty small indeed, with most of the space being taken up by the translation .po files. Cool!! Thanks -- Regards, Olav ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
hi; no: tags and branches in git reference objects and that will balloon the size of the repository. just look at the gdk-pixbuf repo for an example. ciao, Emmanuele. sent from my phone, sorry for the formatting. On 28 Sep 2011 17:25, Germán Póo-Caamaño g...@gnome.org wrote: On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 17:08 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi Olav; I just checked, and the ta... Tags in git need minimal space (which was different with subversion), and those could be useful in the future (ie. if you need to contact authors from x.y version to now). -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:06 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: hi; no: tags and branches in git reference objects and that will balloon the size of the repository. just look at the gdk-pixbuf repo for an example. I think the problem are not the tags or branches per se, there are repositories with too many unrelated tags/branches. gdk-pixbuf$ git tag | wc -l 354 247 of them are some sort of GTK (multihead support, gtk releases, etc.), from the remaining ones there is even an EAZEL-NAUTILUS-MS-AUG07. So, that is inheritance of the migration that -probably- could be cleaned up. But, the bare repository size of gdk-pixbuf still is 144MB. gnome-utils is 47MB (with 286 tags and 56 branches). Even in the worst case, like evolution with 2248 tags and 494 branches, the bare repository size is 363MB. The bare repository of the whole git.gnome.org (640 repositories) is 9.4G, still 3 times smaller than our previous subversion (which has less history and repositories). My point is to set a middle ground, where it were possible to keep the relevant history (dropping the non-related tags and branches) rather than dropping all tags and branches. Regards, -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:25 -0700, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: Tags in git need minimal space (which was different with subversion), and those could be useful in the future (ie. if you need to contact authors from x.y version to now). I don't think this is really worth the hassle in this specific case (and I believe at this point I would have to re-apply all the filters from scratch again to keep the tags as well...). Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I feel like I'm missing all the fun! :P) I'd say if somebody is really interested in obtaining that information, it can be done from the original gnome-utils repository, which won't be deleted anyway. Cheers, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
hi Dennis; On 2011-09-20 at 19:51, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote: With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-system-log, and gnome-search-tool tarballs. Sorry, I do not have the bandwidth these days to do gnome-search-tool releases. I don't think doing multiple tarballs is going to be any more problematic than it already is. the system log viewer, the font viewer and the current incarnation of the dictionary have seen far less action in the past few years. plus, having multiple repositories should help in getting new people interested — there are low hanging fruits in all the gnome-utils project and, currently, building gnome-utils presents a somewhat higher barrier for entry, as it requires a union of all prerequisite dependencies; if I want to hack only on the dictionary I have to build everything. as Cosimo said, splitting up gnome-utils also makes sense in the overall approach of designing the platform in terms of features, and less in terms of apps: it allows us to design all the components instead of shipping a hodgepodge that will be broken off by distributions anyway. Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain, so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do it during the split (probably at the cost of the history), though. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Emmanuele Bassi wrote: Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain, so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do it during the split (probably at the cost of the history), though. The translations shouldn't be an issue, the .po files will be duplicated in the new modules, with a lot of unnecessary strings, and those will be eliminated automatically in l10n.gnome.org since they won't be in the respective .pot file. Fred ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On 2011-09-21 at 13:47, Frederic Peters wrote: Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain, so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do it during the split (probably at the cost of the history), though. The translations shouldn't be an issue, the .po files will be duplicated in the new modules, with a lot of unnecessary strings, and those will be eliminated automatically in l10n.gnome.org since they won't be in the respective .pot file. thanks for the answering my remaining doubt. :-) ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Hi guys, I support the idea of splitting the individual apps separately. Although the distribution will be tricky, but It will result in more serious development of individual apps, like baobab , which require more scanning capabilities and disk management. --Vinit On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Emmanuele Bassi eba...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-09-21 at 13:47, Frederic Peters wrote: Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain, so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do it during the split (probably at the cost of the history), though. The translations shouldn't be an issue, the .po files will be duplicated in the new modules, with a lot of unnecessary strings, and those will be eliminated automatically in l10n.gnome.org since they won't be in the respective .pot file. thanks for the answering my remaining doubt. :-) ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ gnome-utils-list mailing list gnome-utils-l...@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-utils-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:51 -0700, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote: Hi Cosimo, With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-system-log, and gnome-search-tool tarballs. Sorry, I do not have the bandwidth these days to do gnome-search-tool releases. Hi Dennis, I plan to assign maintainership of each of the new modules to the relevant maintainers as listed here basically [1]. Tarballs are usually not a problem, and release-team members always stepped up and rolled tarballs when the maintainer wasn't available and a new release was needed. [1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-utils/tree/MAINTAINERS Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Hi Cosimo, I am fine with the module split as long as the release team is okay with having to generate some more tar balls. Have they been asked? Thanks, Dennis On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Cosimo Cecchi cosi...@gnome.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:51 -0700, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote: Hi Cosimo, With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-system-log, and gnome-search-tool tarballs. Sorry, I do not have the bandwidth these days to do gnome-search-tool releases. Hi Dennis, I plan to assign maintainership of each of the new modules to the relevant maintainers as listed here basically [1]. Tarballs are usually not a problem, and release-team members always stepped up and rolled tarballs when the maintainer wasn't available and a new release was needed. [1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-utils/tree/MAINTAINERS Thanks, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
RE: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Hi Cosimo, With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-system-log, and gnome-search-tool tarballs. Sorry, I do not have the bandwidth these days to do gnome-search-tool releases. Thanks, Dennis Hi, I was discussing with Emmanuele the possibility to split the gnome-utils repository into a separate set of repositories, one for each submodule contained in gnome-utils (that is: baobab, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-screenshot, gnome-search-tool and gnome-system-log). Reasons for this: - it's already common for downstream distributors to split gnome-utils into separate packages. A quick search indicates at least Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora do this. - the gnome-utils maintainers don't get to decide if and how new modules should be added to the repository. - I believe it better suits the GNOME 3 Core/Apps separation model. This way we can have control over which of the submodules ends up in which moduleset, without being limited by a all-or-nothing policy. - I think it's easier for new contributors who want to hack on a module if each project is self-contained in a separate repository. If there are no objections to this, I will try to setup the git magic needed to filter out the submodules from the repository without losing history and proceed to do the split soon after 3.2 is released. Thoughts? Cheers, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Hi, I was discussing with Emmanuele the possibility to split the gnome-utils repository into a separate set of repositories, one for each submodule contained in gnome-utils (that is: baobab, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-screenshot, gnome-search-tool and gnome-system-log). Reasons for this: - it's already common for downstream distributors to split gnome-utils into separate packages. A quick search indicates at least Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora do this. - the gnome-utils maintainers don't get to decide if and how new modules should be added to the repository. - I believe it better suits the GNOME 3 Core/Apps separation model. This way we can have control over which of the submodules ends up in which moduleset, without being limited by a all-or-nothing policy. - I think it's easier for new contributors who want to hack on a module if each project is self-contained in a separate repository. If there are no objections to this, I will try to setup the git magic needed to filter out the submodules from the repository without losing history and proceed to do the split soon after 3.2 is released. Thoughts? Cheers, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Splitting gnome-utils for 3.4
Cosimo; thanks for sending the email. :-) On 2011-09-19 at 17:04, Cosimo Cecchi wrote: I was discussing with Emmanuele the possibility to split the gnome-utils repository into a separate set of repositories, one for each submodule contained in gnome-utils (that is: baobab, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary, gnome-screenshot, gnome-search-tool and gnome-system-log). I fully endorse this plan; we should have done this for 3.0, really, but better late than never. using git filter-branch is not complicated, I even blogged about it ages ago: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi/2007/09/11/when-the-levee-breaks/ ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
