[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       calligra-devel
Subject:    Re: After 2.9.7
From:       Boudewijn Rempt <boud () valdyas ! org>
Date:       2015-08-31 10:10:04
Message-ID: alpine.LNX.2.00.1508311209130.28597 () calcifer ! valdyas ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Dmitry Kazakov wrote:

> 
> 1) I'm ok with forking Krita repository. We already depend from quite few libraries \
> from calligra libs. That is mostly, KoCanvasBase, KoDocumentBase, flake and \
> pigment.From all four only pigment looks
> reusable enough for me to have a separate repo. In our code we hack quite a lot to \
> adapt flake and document classes for our needs. 
> 2) One more benefit of forking to another repository would be that the size of the \
> repo would become lower (correct me if I'm wrong). Since "Krita for Cats" manual is \
> still semi-official way of building
> Krita on some platforms this is really crucial for many users. Quite a lot of \
> people still have GPRS or limited internet, so downloading 700MiB just to try Krita \
> *is* a barrier. Another problem is
> translators. Basically, they need to have a full source tree around to be able to \
> check where the string comes from. 
> 
> The repo size is one reason I'm actually considering to drop all
> history. Create a fresh new repo with cleaned-up code only and start
> again from commit 0. I know we check history a lot, but that history is
> the history of Krita up to Krita 2.9.x, which is in the calligra repo.
> 
> 
> This will make our life really hard :(

Well, it's something to consider if size of the final repo is important.

Boudewijn
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]