On 2/15/13 11:13 AM, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <oswald.buddenha...@digia.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:01:31PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Knoll Lars <lars.kn...@digia.com> >>wrote: >> > Well, I already gave that my approval some days ago in another thread. >> > >> > I've now created the repository. >> > ssh://codereview.qt-project.org:29418/qt/qtwinextras.git. >> > >ehm. yeah. and i fixed the setup. ;) Well, I did as good as I could :) Can we please document all the required steps on the wiki? It's not healthy if only one or two people know how to do this. >the project is currently not CI-controlled. is this expected to change >soon? > >> Lars, just double checking for making sure: you meant to create >> qt/qtwinextras or more like playground as playground/qtmacextras? >> >this question is actually why i didn't create the project to start with >- x11extras is under qt/, while macextras is in playground/. Yes, we had both as a precedence, but under qt/ simply makes more sense, esp. given that moving projects is not easy with gerrit. > >anyway, i'll use this to raise a general point: i think the idea to put >new projects physically under playground/ and then actually moving them >upon graduation is counterproductive: >- as we know, gerrit is too limited to actually allow it, and nobody has > bothered yet to do the manual work for the already graduated project > (i can give it a shot, but don't shout if i accidentally take down the > system ... (i'm positive it would be only temporary :D)). >- changing the location of the repository is slightly disruptive >- we have no process to "un-graduate" projects. think qtpim and the > sorts. this is "pr-wise unfair" to the projects which are actually > stable (but still must stay in playground for technical reasons). > >therefore i'd like to propose the following alteration of the process: >- nothing changes for projects which are not meant to graduate on their > own. think playground/qtbinaryjson. >- all other projects are created in the hierarchy they are aiming for >- their maturity is represented solely by some external meta > information: > - a wiki page (do we have one which could serve this already?) > - the set of modules init-repository would clone by default (see also > https://codereview.qt-project.org/41547 and > https://codereview.qt-project.org/41548 (i plan to actually add more > in a later commit)) > - alternatively, it would be possible to create a separate branch of > the supermodule which includes more submodules than the mainline > branches. it would be bothersome to maintain this, though. >- projects which are positively abandoned could be physically moved to a > separate "namespace" (pending technical obstacles of actually moving) This actually sounds good to me. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
