On 2011-10-12 19:12, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> Den 06-10-2011 20:44, Cosimo Cecchi skrev:
>> On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
>>
>>> You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
>>> seemed to work for me:
>>>
>>> $ cd po/
>>> $ for po in *.po; do intltool-
Den 06-10-2011 20:44, Cosimo Cecchi skrev:
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
seemed to work for me:
$ cd po/
$ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
$ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
$ for po in *.po;
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 12:59 +0200, Stef Walter wrote:
> You probably already figured this out, but here's the commands that
> seemed to work for me:
>
> $ cd po/
> $ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; done
> $ sed -i.bak '/#~/d' *.po
> $ for po in *.po; do intltool-update ${po%.po}; do
On 2011-09-30 00:04, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 23:33 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
>
>> Speaking of size of po-files. As we have already established, bringing
>> translation over should be relatively easy, since by copying them over
>> and updateing, the relevant translations
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 23:33 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> Speaking of size of po-files. As we have already established, bringing
> translation over should be relatively easy, since by copying them over
> and updateing, the relevant translations will be kept and the rest will
> become obsolete
Den 28-09-2011 18:13, Cosimo Cecchi skrev:
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't
too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong.
Forgot to mention this in the previous mail, but I made sur
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so
> they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to
> keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and
> PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I feel like I'm mis
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011, à 14:35 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi a écrit :
>> Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so
>> they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to
>> keep things tags like D
Le mercredi 28 septembre 2011, à 14:35 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi a écrit :
> Also, gnome-utils has the same unrelated tags issue of gdk-pixbuf, so
> they would need to be manually selected anyway (unless we also want to
> keep things tags like DROOLING_MACAQUE and
> PANTING_CHIMPANZEE...seriously, I fee
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 09:25 -0700, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote:
> Tags in git need minimal space (which was different with subversion),
> and those could be useful in the future (ie. if you need to contact
> authors from x.y version to now).
I don't think this is really worth the hassle in this spec
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:06 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi;
>
> no: tags and branches in git reference objects and that will balloon
> the size of the repository. just look at the gdk-pixbuf repo for an
> example.
I think the problem are not the tags or branches per se, there are
repositories
hi;
no: tags and branches in git reference objects and that will balloon the
size of the repository. just look at the gdk-pixbuf repo for an example.
ciao,
Emmanuele.
sent from my phone, sorry for the formatting.
On 28 Sep 2011 17:25, "Germán Póo-Caamaño" wrote:
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 17:08 +0
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:13:33PM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't
> > too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong.
>
> Forgot to mention this in t
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 17:08 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi Olav;
>
> I just checked, and the tags and branches haven't been imported in the
> split repositories. those are the usual suspects for repos being
> overblown.
Tags in git need minimal space (which was different with subversion),
and
On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 18:03 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> Not sure if possible, but can you ensure the new git repositories aren't
> too big in size? E.g. try and purge stuff that doesn't belong.
Forgot to mention this in the previous mail, but I made sure the
repositories have no stale old stuff
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> I went ahead and did the module split grunt work. [1] has preview git
> repositories for standalone modules; I made sure every module passes
> distcheck and everything seems to work fine so far.
Not sure if possible, but can you ensu
hi Olav;
I just checked, and the tags and branches haven't been imported in the split
repositories. those are the usual suspects for repos being overblown.
ciao,
Emmanuele.
sent from my phone, sorry for the formatting.
On 28 Sep 2011 17:04, "Olav Vitters" wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:56:
On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 17:04 -0400, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> If there are no objections to this, I will try to setup the git magic
> needed to filter out the submodules from the repository without losing
> history and proceed to do the split soon after 3.2 is released.
> Thoughts?
Hi again,
I went
Hi Cosimo,
I am fine with the module split as long as the release team is okay with
having to generate some more tar balls. Have they been asked?
Thanks,
Dennis
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:51 -0700, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote:
> > Hi Cos
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:51 -0700, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote:
> Hi Cosimo,
>
> With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems
> easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to
> determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk
> usage analyzer, gnom
Hi guys,
I support the idea of splitting the individual apps separately. Although the
distribution will be tricky, but It will result in more serious development
of individual apps, like baobab , which require more scanning capabilities
and disk management.
--Vinit
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:54 P
On 2011-09-21 at 13:47, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the
> > translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain,
> > so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do
> > it during the spli
Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> Cosimo: the only issue I can think of when splitting up the repo are the
> translations; currently, everything is translated into the same domain,
> so we'll need the i18n teams to perform some surgery. we can probably do
> it during the split (probably at the cost of the
hi Dennis;
On 2011-09-20 at 19:51, Dennis Cranston (Yahoo!) wrote:
> With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems
> easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to
> determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk
> usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, fon
Hi Cosimo,
With the resources available to help on gnome-utils, it seems
easier to continue releasing one tarball. Otherwise, we need to
determine who will step up and handle releases of the disk
usage analyzer, gnome-screenshot, font-viewer, gnome-dictionary,
gnome-system-log, and gnome-search-t
Cosimo;
thanks for sending the email. :-)
On 2011-09-19 at 17:04, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> I was discussing with Emmanuele the possibility to split the gnome-utils
> repository into a separate set of repositories, one for each submodule
> contained in gnome-utils (that is: baobab, font-viewer,
> gn
Hi,
I was discussing with Emmanuele the possibility to split the gnome-utils
repository into a separate set of repositories, one for each submodule
contained in gnome-utils (that is: baobab, font-viewer,
gnome-dictionary, gnome-screenshot, gnome-search-tool and
gnome-system-log).
Reasons for this
27 matches
Mail list logo
