El Diumenge, 29 de desembre de 2013, a les 20:05:20, David Faure va escriure: > On Saturday 28 December 2013 17:34:35 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > I guess yes, was waiting for Torgny/other people opinion on them, since > > they are not what we used to use (i.e. master and 4.11 are the "old" > > ones). If you can have a look at the old ones and agree the 4.12 ones are > > simpler, it'd be a good thing to help me merge them to master. > > Yes, actually I tried the old ones first, since I had a master checkout and > initially forgot your recommendation to use 4.12. > > I agree that the 4.12 scripts are easier because they automate more things. > > I just had to disable the call to pack_l10n.sh since there's no l10n for > frameworks yet, apart from that it works great. > > > > I have the patch below to commit, but apparently no permission to push, > > > can I get that? > > > > Ask it to someone that knows how to do that :D Sysadmin? > > Yep, Ben was CC'ed in my previous mail :) > > > Where do you want to push that master? or a kf5 branch? > > 4.12, since that's what I was using, but with the idea of it getting merged > to master at some point.
I think you should create a kf5.0 branch in the repo, that way you can kill the pack_l10n.sh and put the correct branches in the modules.git file, etc. > > > The awesomeness of not using an existing clone for the archiving is that > > you don't mess up with some local changes you may have had for the > > tagging, the old scripts sorted that out by forcing you to have a > > separate "clean" checkout, but even with that it has happened that we > > fucked up something, that's why i went the git archive route. Tagging on > > the other hand is kind of hard to make a mistake even if you use an > > existing clone since it's just about tagging an existing hash. > > Yep, exactly my thinking too. > > > > [providing ZIP sources for Windows users] > > > > If you don't want to stress the server much you can always untar and zip > > it > > locally. > > Oh. Great idea, thanks. > > What do you think about the doubled space requirements on the server though? > Well, maybe that's a question for sysadmin too... > > > > In any case - yes, these scripts make a lot of sense, we should work on > > > automating the tagging, and I can help with that. > > > > This is the silly script i have, it needs some work to integrate it better > > with the exisitng stuff, but basically it does the job. > > OK, I'll look at that when doing the actual release. > > I guess it should not be triggered by the main pack_all.sh script though, > since that's "safe to play with locally" while tagging (and pushing the > tags) is for real, so I'll make it a separate tag_all.sh script. Yep. Also we usually do the tarballing, give them to packagers and then only tag on release (which is a few days later) in case we need to redo the tarballs, so pack and tag should be different. Cheers, Albert _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
