On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Chani <chanika@gmail.com> wrote:
> On November 1, 2010 09:39:56 Michael Jansen wrote:
>> > it could work out great, it could be a disaster, it could be a lot of
>> > work for a little gain ... we just can't tell right now because it's
>> > nothing more than a vague idea.
>> >
>> > you really can't plan the future of core assets like that.
>>
>> But preparing our our assets in a way that would make identifiying and
>> merging stuff into qt easy would benefit our visibility even if the
>> merging never happens.
>>
>
> +1 - this has been a great brainstorming exercise. :)
> there are certainly obstacles to the "merger" idea, and a fair chance of it
> turning out to be infeasible or unwanted (while I hope the open governance
> thing keeps improving, I'm not going to put blind faith in it) but it got us
> thinking, didn't it? :)
>
> modularizing and promoting kdelibs looks like something we can all agree
> should be done. separating it into generally-useful features vs. workspace
> integration features, allowing people to use just some of it, *telling* them
> what we have and how easy it is to use it and why it'll make their application
> shoot magical rainbow lasers ;)
>
> ...so now I suppose it's time to start doing it. Not the actual modularization
> right away, of course, but planning what can be done and documenting what we
> have and advertising to people outside kde that yes, we have these features
> and they're great and you want to use them even if it does mean linking to
> some other stuff right now. :)

One thing I would like to add: The migration to Git will make such
undertakings much, much easier for us.

Trying to reorganize KDElibs with SVN would be a nightmare. With Git,
it might actually not be as much work as expected, if done right.

-- 
Mark Kretschmann
Amarok Developer, Software Engineer at KO GmbH
Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
http://amarok.kde.org - http://www.fsfe.org - http://www.kogmbh.com