[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: kde-qt branches after 4.6.0 release
From: Alexis_Ménard <menard () kde ! org>
Date: 2009-12-01 16:12:20
Message-ID: 81941aea0912010812t1a886963g4dcde8136795df7f () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Parker Coates <parker.coates@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:03, David Faure wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Thiago Macieira <thiago@kde.org> wrote:
> >> > - due to the way that the master and 4.6-stable-patched branches are
> >> > created (with Git merges), it will be extremely hard for packagers to
> >> > extract patches from them. KDE developers didn't like the solution I
> >> > created that would accommodate everyone (the 4.5.x-patched branches),
> so
> >> > to make the developers' lives easier, we're making the packagers'
> lives
> >> > absolute nightmare. I'm not available for help, don't bother asking on
> >> > IRC.
> >>
> >> I must intonate a 'mea culpa' here because I was the one who proposed
> >> the current kde-qt.git branch model (
> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61168 ). I did not
> >> know it would make extracting the patches nearly impossible, and it
> >> was not said at any point in the thread (or at least I cannot find
> >> anything other than the "OK, we can do that" in
> >> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61172 )
> >
> > Yeah I think Thiago is pretty unfair here.
> > We can't be blamed for asking for convenience if we didn't know it would
> have
> > bad consequences on packagers. Besides I don't see what's hard about
> > extracting patches. Or why packagers would want to take most unofficial
> patches
> > anyway.
>
> Well to be fair, Thiago's been dealing with a lot of questions and
> complaints about kde-qt lately. I imagine it's getting to be a bit of
> headache for him. We also keep changing our minds about what we want
> kde-qt to be.
>
> Some (like myself) just want something that always points to the
> latest version of Qt recommended for KDE development. We don't really
> care about an accurate history, the ability to make merge requests or
> the handling of KDE specifc patches. Others just want a place to store
> and organise the KDE specific patches. Others seem to want kde-qt to
> serve as a way to work with Qt while keeping the KDE patches. I think
> the people in the second and third categories are probably more git
> knowledgeable, while many of those in the first category are not.
>
> As each group got more vocal, Thiago had to change the meaning of
> different branches in kde-qt. I can understand if he's frustrated.
>
> Maybe we need a brand new repository call qt-for-kde-dummies with only
> a single master branch. This would be the latest recommended Qt with
> the latest recommended patches, but no guarantee of a clean history,
> patch extractability, etc. I, for one, know I would use it.
>
And Qt Developers who want to share patches when they fix bad crashes so KDE
developers can work without waiting the next release.
>
> Parker
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Parker Coates <span \
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parker.coates@gmail.com">parker.coates@gmail.com</a>></span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, \
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><div></div><div \
class="h5">On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:03, David Faure wrote:<br> > On Tuesday 01 \
December 2009, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:<br> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:12 \
PM, Thiago Macieira <<a href="mailto:thiago@kde.org">thiago@kde.org</a>> \
wrote:<br> >> > - due to the way that the master and 4.6-stable-patched \
branches are<br> >> > created (with Git merges), it will be extremely hard \
for packagers to<br> >> > extract patches from them. KDE developers \
didn't like the solution I<br> >> > created that would accommodate \
everyone (the 4.5.x-patched branches), so<br> >> > to make the \
developers' lives easier, we're making the packagers' lives<br> >> \
> absolute nightmare. I'm not available for help, don't bother asking \
on<br> >> > IRC.<br>
>><br>
>> I must intonate a 'mea culpa' here because I was the one who \
proposed<br> >> the current kde-qt.git branch model (<br>
>> <a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61168" \
target="_blank">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61168</a> ). I did \
not<br> >> know it would make extracting the patches nearly impossible, and \
it<br> >> was not said at any point in the thread (or at least I cannot \
find<br> >> anything other than the "OK, we can do that" in<br>
>> <a href="http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61172" \
target="_blank">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.core/61172</a> )<br> \
><br> > Yeah I think Thiago is pretty unfair here.<br>
> We can't be blamed for asking for convenience if we didn't know it would \
have<br> > bad consequences on packagers. Besides I don't see what's hard \
about<br> > extracting patches. Or why packagers would want to take most \
unofficial patches<br> > anyway.<br>
<br>
</div></div>Well to be fair, Thiago's been dealing with a lot of questions \
and<br> complaints about kde-qt lately. I imagine it's getting to be a bit of<br>
headache for him. We also keep changing our minds about what we want<br>
kde-qt to be.<br>
<br>
Some (like myself) just want something that always points to the<br>
latest version of Qt recommended for KDE development. We don't really<br>
care about an accurate history, the ability to make merge requests or<br>
the handling of KDE specifc patches. Others just want a place to store<br>
and organise the KDE specific patches. Others seem to want kde-qt to<br>
serve as a way to work with Qt while keeping the KDE patches. I think<br>
the people in the second and third categories are probably more git<br>
knowledgeable, while many of those in the first category are not.<br>
<br>
As each group got more vocal, Thiago had to change the meaning of<br>
different branches in kde-qt. I can understand if he's frustrated.<br>
<br>
Maybe we need a brand new repository call qt-for-kde-dummies with only<br>
a single master branch. This would be the latest recommended Qt with<br>
the latest recommended patches, but no guarantee of a clean history,<br>
patch extractability, etc. I, for one, know I would use \
it.<br></blockquote><div><br>And Qt Developers who want to share patches when they \
fix bad crashes so KDE developers can work without waiting the next release.<br> \
</div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, \
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <font color="#888888"><br>
Parker<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic