On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Scott Moreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Sam Spilsbury <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to propose a simplification to our current repo structure,
>> based on the way development is going. It seems like a lot of the
>> structure of the project was impacted by the political development of
>> compiz and this is proving to be a high barrier to entry to people who
>> want to get started on compiz.
>>
>> 1. fold libcompizconfig into core: I can't think of anybody that uses
>> the legacy gconf and ini plugins now. compizconfig provides this
>> functionality just fine. We would still have a libcompizconfig library
>> for the backends to link to and for external applications to use to
>> configure compiz. It also means that we can drop some of the behaviour
>> that the gconf backend used to track the gconf plugin, such as copying
>> keys around on profile change.
>> 2. fold the backends into core under gnome/ and kde/ . Again, there is
>> no need for more repositories for these things. We already maintain
>> the decorators as part of core, the backends can be done in core as
>> well.
>
> Sounds good.

I'll get started on that ASAP

>
>>
>> 3. fold plugins-main into core, move plugins-extra and
>> plugins-unsupported into plugins-community. The main plugins are what
>> distributions are shipping with, so keep them. The extra and
>> unsupported plugins are community things.
>
> I propose that all non-wm-essential plugins be moved out of core into
> separate repos and be included with plugins-main and possibly keep
> plugins-main separate.

I agree about moving the plugins into separate repos and having them
synced into plugins-main. I think that the plugins should be
distributed as part of core though, it means less stuff to compile
(since compiz is a fairly useless wm without them)

>
>>
>> 4. fold compizconfig-python into core: There isn't any reason these
>> day to ship python bindings separately.
>
> As a side note, we probably should prepare for python3 support at some point
> as well.

I believe we already do support python3, or at least, I remember
implementing support for it at one point. It was a fairly easy task.

>
>>
>> The individual plugins will still remain in their own repos. This is
>> useful because it allows those components to have different release
>> schedules and development methods. For everything else, developers
>> should be able to branch one project and get started right away.
>>
>> If nobody objects to this, I'll start doing it within the next few days.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.compiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>



-- 
Sam Spilsbury
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.compiz.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to