A Dissabte, 29 de gener de 2011, Albert Astals Cid va escriure: > A Dissabte, 29 de gener de 2011, Christoph Cullmann va escriure: > > On Sunday 16 January 2011 13:11:47 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > is it ok to now move that stuff to the kate.git for KDE 4.7? > > > KTextEditor can reside in kdelibs, to keep BC /SC (I will sync it if > > > changes occur). > > > > > > This would remove: > > > > > > kdelibs/kate > > > kdesdk/kate > > > kdebase/apps/kwrite > > > > > > (and I guess the doc/.. stuff for the apps need to move and > > > what-I-don't know i18n scripts + packaging must change) > > > > > > But the part/application code really should be only in one place. > > > Given that most people work only in kate.git, this will avoid my hassle > > > with syncs, I will only keep syncing /trunk => git, to avoid any losses > > > until this is done, thought. > > > > As no reaction until now and kdelibs moves git now already, I intend to > > move kate part out of kdelibs and only let it be in kate.git (same for > > kwrite in kdebase and kate in kdesdk). > > > > I propose the weekend 15.-16. Feb for the move (which more or less would > > only be a delete in git/svn of the old copies). > > > > I guess this needs coordination to have for example still working i18n > > (as the docbooks would move too and the i18n stuff needs fixing). > > Therefore CC Albert, would that date be ok for you to help me a bit with > > this? Or should I delay and ask on i18n for help? > > > > With kdelibs now being a git, it really is not that nice for contributors > > of kate part to clone whole kdelibs... > > I'm sorry but having an own repo for kate with all the stuff in there is a > no go from the i18n point of view.
Let me be a bit more clear. It's a no go since it totally breaks the module concept KDE and thus KDE i18n has been using forever. That is, in which of this "packages" [ http://l10n.kde.org/stats/gui/trunk-kde4/team/ca/ ] do i extract the po files that originate from the kate repo? As I see it, answers can be: * In a new top level "package" -> no go for me since kate is in no way more important than say k3b * Each file in a totally different "package" -> no go for me since it means having to add manually rules for each of the .po files you create from the kate repo So this is why i think it's a no go, and why opossed ages ago already. Albert > > Albert > > > Greetings > > Christoph > > _______________________________________________ > release-team mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
