Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
There is an existing page about slitting runtime here: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Epics/New_Runtime_Organization linked to from http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Epics Alex's wiki page looks far more populated. We should make sure we avoid wiki duplication. David
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
I don't clearly understand why KUriFilter-Plugins should go to plasma- workspace. I noticed KUriFilter is defined in kio and its plugins are used e.g. in kparts (browserextension). Shouldn't these go to kio? 2014/1/22 Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org On Tuesday 21 January 2014 12:05:26 Antonis Tsiapaliokas wrote: 1) Create two different groups named plasma-workspace and plasma-desktop like frameworks 2) Split out every component into individual repos 3) Assign repos to the related group. Advantages: 1) Easy to assign maintainer to individual component. 2) If we split only some repos, we can not mark it as part of workspace but this way we can do it. 3) More, may be? That's my humble suggestion. :) Again, this is a proposal so please! send any feedback you might have. Thanks! I think that splitting each individual component to its own repo might be a bit confusing. Because if we don't have two groups (plasma-desktop and plasma- workspace), then we will not be able to provide something as a standard solution. So each person will consider Plasma Desktop as something entirely different. Note however that it's not a proper argument for splitting repos or not since nowadays our infrastructure has the concept of grouping independently of the repos. So we could split in their own repo and still have a way to make a plasma-desktop and a plasma-workspace group. OTOH Sebas argument is much more compelling. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com -- Andrea Diamantini WEB: http://www.adjam.org rekonq project WEB: http://rekonq.kde.org IRC: rekonq@freenode
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
In the plasma sprint we have done a session to plan what we are going to do with kde-workspace/kde-runtime repositories, here is the proposal we came with. We are going to create 2 new repos called plasma-desktop and plasma-workspace, we decided to use plasma as a prefix so in the future we can have more workspaces and desktops without being in the awkward situation of having one wrongly labeled as KDE while others are not (thinking on for example having Razorqt/lxde as part of KDE in the future). Current kde-workspace and kde- runtime will be kept for history reasons. plasma-desktop will hold all specific pieces tied to the desktop experience, for example the touchpadenabler only makes sense on laptops. plasma-workspace will contain all bits that are generic enough to be of interest for more than one form factor, for example we need appmenu in both, tablet and desktop. Additionally we want to split optional dependencies (kinfocenter for example) and other projects that are quite big. Some of the new repositories we want to create are: powerdevil kwin oxygen (containing a full Oxygen experience) ksysguard kinfocenter klipper... A full list of the proposed new repositories can be found at [1]. Finally some other bits could be merged with some Frameworks, it is the case for example of solid-hardware and solid-networkstatus that should be moved to solid. Again, this is a proposal so please! send any feedback you might have. Cheers. Hi, I am ok with splitting KInfocenter into it's own repo. It might also be an idea to split System Settings kcm's and KInfocenter kcm's into a repo called KCM or something and then have KInfocenter and System Settings repo's just for the app. I feel I might be missing some history here though.. why is this being done? Thanks [1] http://community.kde.org/Plasma/Tokamak7/split_proposal
Re: Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
On Tuesday 21 January 2014 13:12:58 David Hubner wrote: In the plasma sprint we have done a session to plan what we are going to do with kde-workspace/kde-runtime repositories, here is the proposal we came with. We are going to create 2 new repos called plasma-desktop and plasma-workspace, we decided to use plasma as a prefix so in the future we can have more workspaces and desktops without being in the awkward situation of having one wrongly labeled as KDE while others are not (thinking on for example having Razorqt/lxde as part of KDE in the future). Current kde-workspace and kde- runtime will be kept for history reasons. plasma-desktop will hold all specific pieces tied to the desktop experience, for example the touchpadenabler only makes sense on laptops. plasma-workspace will contain all bits that are generic enough to be of interest for more than one form factor, for example we need appmenu in both, tablet and desktop. Additionally we want to split optional dependencies (kinfocenter for example) and other projects that are quite big. Some of the new repositories we want to create are: powerdevil kwin oxygen (containing a full Oxygen experience) ksysguard kinfocenter klipper... A full list of the proposed new repositories can be found at [1]. Finally some other bits could be merged with some Frameworks, it is the case for example of solid-hardware and solid-networkstatus that should be moved to solid. Again, this is a proposal so please! send any feedback you might have. Cheers. Hi, I am ok with splitting KInfocenter into it's own repo. It might also be an idea to split System Settings kcm's and KInfocenter kcm's into a repo called KCM or something and then have KInfocenter and System Settings repo's just for the app. That might be an idea. Or throw together system settings, kinfocenter and all the KCMs. But that are details for when we do the split :-) I feel I might be missing some history here though.. why is this being done? The idea to split workspace into more repos had been around for quite some time. We noticed that we have applications with very different scope in kde- workspace. Historically the workspace has been X11 only and everything in the repo should only make sense when running the KDE workspaces. That's not really the case any more: * we have applications which are built on all platforms (e.g. KInfoCenter) * we have X11 only applications which are used outside the KDE workspaces (e.g. KWin) * we have applications which are only used on one or the other shell of the kde-workspaces * we have libraries other applications depend on and we don't want applications to depend on the workspaces (famous example kdevelop depending on ksysguard) Just look at the CMakeList and the mess we do with finding the requirements for e.g. KWin. Let's first find some random X11 library to check whether we are on X11 and then turn the optional X11 dependency into a mandatory and start to find more required stuff. That's IMHO already a good enough technical reason to do the split. There are more reasons to split up and clean up. I just wanted to outline one rather obvious. Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:03:57 Bhushan Shah wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Àlex Fiestas afies...@kde.org wrote: In the plasma sprint we have done a session to plan what we are going to do with kde-workspace/kde-runtime repositories, here is the proposal we came with. We are going to create 2 new repos called plasma-desktop and plasma-workspace, we decided to use plasma as a prefix so in the future we can have more workspaces and desktops without being in the awkward situation of having one wrongly labeled as KDE while others are not (thinking on for example having Razorqt/lxde as part of KDE in the future). Current kde-workspace and kde- runtime will be kept for history reasons. I want to suggest something different, 1) Create two different groups named plasma-workspace and plasma-desktop like frameworks How is this granularity useful? To me, it sounds like way too much, too hard to move code around within the same domain, for example. We don't want to flood people with hundreds of repositories. The generic workspace vs. specific formfactor split is well in line with how we see people deploying Plasma, you install the framework, the generic workspace, and then a package for a specific formfactor. Cheers, -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
1) Create two different groups named plasma-workspace and plasma-desktop like frameworks 2) Split out every component into individual repos 3) Assign repos to the related group. Advantages: 1) Easy to assign maintainer to individual component. 2) If we split only some repos, we can not mark it as part of workspace but this way we can do it. 3) More, may be? That's my humble suggestion. :) Again, this is a proposal so please! send any feedback you might have. Thanks! I think that splitting each individual component to its own repo might be a bit confusing. Because if we don't have two groups (plasma-desktop and plasma- workspace), then we will not be able to provide something as a standard solution. So each person will consider Plasma Desktop as something entirely different.
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
Hello! On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Àlex Fiestas afies...@kde.org wrote: In the plasma sprint we have done a session to plan what we are going to do with kde-workspace/kde-runtime repositories, here is the proposal we came with. We are going to create 2 new repos called plasma-desktop and plasma-workspace, we decided to use plasma as a prefix so in the future we can have more workspaces and desktops without being in the awkward situation of having one wrongly labeled as KDE while others are not (thinking on for example having Razorqt/lxde as part of KDE in the future). Current kde-workspace and kde- runtime will be kept for history reasons. I want to suggest something different, 1) Create two different groups named plasma-workspace and plasma-desktop like frameworks 2) Split out every component into individual repos 3) Assign repos to the related group. Advantages: 1) Easy to assign maintainer to individual component. 2) If we split only some repos, we can not mark it as part of workspace but this way we can do it. 3) More, may be? That's my humble suggestion. :) Again, this is a proposal so please! send any feedback you might have. Thanks! -- Bhushan Shah http://bhush9.github.io IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
Hello! On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Antonis Tsiapaliokas kok...@gmail.com wrote: I think that splitting each individual component to its own repo might be a bit confusing. Because if we don't have two groups (plasma-desktop and plasma- workspace), then we will not be able to provide something as a standard solution. So each person will consider Plasma Desktop as something entirely different. Yes having group is essential, otherwise it will create confusion.. repo like kde:kf5umbrella will be also needed. Thanks! -- Bhushan Shah http://bhush9.github.io IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode
Re: Splitting kde-workspace and kde-runtime proposal
On Tuesday 21 January 2014 13:04:22 Sebastian Kügler wrote: 1) Create two different groups named plasma-workspace and plasma-desktop like frameworks How is this granularity useful? To me, it sounds like way too much, too hard to move code around within the same domain, for example. We don't want to flood people with hundreds of repositories. The generic workspace vs. specific formfactor split is well in line with how we see people deploying Plasma, you install the framework, the generic workspace, and then a package for a specific formfactor. just instinctively i would say that the more splitting the more not my problem, i'll ignore this bit scenario it may cause -- Marco Martin
