Krusader in KDE's SVN

[Sebastian Kügler]

Hi,

Let me try to shine some light on some of the questions raised in the "should
krusader move into KDE's SVN?" discussion. Please reply to both lists,
krusade...@googlegroups.com and releas...@kde.org

From the thread held on the krusader list, I'm sensing the misconceptions that
being developed in KDE's SVN, it means you have to comply with KDE's release
schedule. Not true, you can in fact decide that yourself. (Trade-off is
basically between doing release management yourself and being free to decide
when to release vs. having the KDE release team do it for you, but you have to
respect the overall KDE release schedule then). That's your choice, however.

* rules
That depends largely on how you'd like to release. If you want krusader to be
part of KDE releases (be it by means of extragear or some other module),
you'll have to respect feature and string freezes. This kind of comes with the
release management and translation the KDE team then does for you. I'm not
aware of any other hard rules, but the policies page on techbase gives more
info: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies (Note: not all applies to an app like
krusader).

* control
You remain in control. If you choose to have Krusader released with regular
KDE releases, rules for that apply. Basically, you can decide how you want to
have your release cycle, commit policies etc. Sometimes, people will commit
into your code, in almost all cases, those are trivial fixes then. If
something that might raise objections go in, the committer should (as usual in
KDE) contact the developers before committing. Everybody with a KDE SVN
account has commit rights though. Basically, you can have Krusader in KDE's
SVN and be as independent as you want.

* advantages:
- less infrastructure maintainance
- more likely participation of developers that have a KDE SVN account already
- code review, a lot of people follow commits and review patches (no promise,
it's just more likely due to increased visibility)
- can be released alongside KDE (whereever it ends up, even extragear)
- integration of SVN with bugtracker (Krusader is already using bugs.kde.org,
right?)
- translation done be KDE translation teams (manpower, consistency across
desktop)
- shows stronger KDE ties, taking a bit more advantage of KDE's brand

* disadvantages
- possibly losing history
- migration effort

I for one would be happy to welcome the Krusader team in KDE's SVN. If there
are any questions left I would be happy to answer (as I'm sure that applies to
others as well).

Cheers,
--
sebas

http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9

[shie erlich]

hi Sebas,

thanks for the informative mail.

 

I, for one, feel confident that the time is right for krusader to move closer together with kde.

i think it has other advantages not mentioned here (mostly from PR perspective), but that aside, i would like to know which module krusader would be getting into. ideally, i'd like to see krusader in a package that usually gets installed by default, which (i *think*) is not the situation with extragear?

what do you think guys?

 

thanks,

shie

 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJJLBFDAAoJEGdNh9WRGQ75JKYH/jKSzcbE62uo9bO1xJlo+DFO
f3/mw4Jl1EVfdyUd9IkBSHDEmAGDpLZF0kR8B8uFraUN6FC0X8ZPSbjl+h48r3Ye
xOtWq3NyMGG5K1S8bu3C5Zlgi0P1IkGSdfPbnejmcX/jDoEwfLhP93De+VcJwrgh
EazG+fdOWwsISPsbd/zG3hYaqSEluIuFtYdOau3FhYLYNxEVzLjraqDV/GLHK+Ey
5PsWYshY8iFH1zQVkcw0c1KI1ldPTd8iwxtqT0mEwTGaEPfb95pZUd+CnygbIAMi
4Vq++mu/5GCgVFhdCscSVmCjnYoTGAAI+DzdSLEhM39j+OUwOkew59ON6QtzFCQ=
=SaGl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Frank Schoolmeesters]

Hi,

It would be nice that Krusader (OFM file management in general) could
become more *default* but the problem
is that not many users and distribution creators are not aware that
OFM file management
is the best file management concept that exist IMHO
It combines all the power off: shell, GUI, keybord-shortcuts,
panel-interaction, userscripts, ...
Easy to use by newbies and has all the power for gurus at the same
time (not many programs do have that).
More info about OFM file management at:
http://www.softpanorama.org/OFM/index.shtml
I also explained this in the "Talking to projects to come into the KDE
SVN " tread on Krusader-devel.
http://groups.google.com/group/krusader-devel/browse_thread/thread/269d7beceff3274

And so people would re-discover the basic principles of the default
file manager for DOS, the great old Norton Commander.


About the SVN transition, IMHO we are now at the right moment for a move.
We can release current Krusader-SVN trunk as Krusader-2.0.0-beta2
"Space Odyssey"
and than start moving the Krusader-SVN code to the KDE servers.
Later on, consider a feature freeze, start maximum debugging, beta-3
release, beta-4 if needed,
and than a first stable Krusader-2.0 for KDE4.


Since Krusader-2.x for KDE4 also compiles on Windows,
it would be wonderful that the KDE project adds Krusader in the
kdewin-installer.
Current Krusader-SVN trunk on Windows should be considered as "alpha"
because it's not yet tested a lot on Windows.
For more testing we need more Windows users and Windows related bug reports.
After that it can become relatively fast considered as "beta".

> (Krusader is already using bugs.kde.org, right?)

Krusader is in bugs.kde.org but it's not used by Krusader project currently ...
It was probably used a very long time ago (it contains Krusader
version numbers 0.75, 0.79, 1.0.2, 1.10 = august 2002).
Krusader uses now the Sourceforge bugtracker
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=106488&group_id=6488&func=browse
So I suppose we should start using bugs.kde.org again after the move to KDE SVN.

kind regards,

Frank

[Jonas Bähr]

Hi,

Am 25.11.2008 um 19:36 schrieb shie erlich:

> hi Sebas,
> thanks for the informative mail.
>
> I, for one, feel confident that the time is right for krusader to
> move closer together with kde.

I do also think that it'll be great to move a bit closer to the KDE
Project and to benefit from KDE's infrastructure (translations, review/
bugtracking, marketing, ... perhaps even mailinglists).

I feel very comfortable with the SVN Policies on techbase. If they are
really applied by the guys with svn commit access (which would include
us after the move) I don't think we will get in trouble with strangers
doing unwanted code harakiri.

In my eyes we could move immediately *after* the 2.0.0 release. We
made a first beta for KDE-4 some time ago with a second one on the
door step. I don't want to move in the middle of a release process.

Since 2.0.0 would be our first KDE-4 release, it would be an
acceptable point to beginn with a blank history. Sebastian, you
mentioned "possibly losing history" as a disadvantage. Does this mean
there is a chance to keep our history? Under which conditions? My svn
knowledge regarding such migrations is limited, but I could only think
of a replay of our repository. This does not really make sense....

> i think it has other advantages not mentioned here (mostly from PR
> perspective), but that aside, i would like to know which module
> krusader would be getting into. ideally, i'd like to see krusader in
> a package that usually gets installed by default, which (i *think*)
> is not the situation with extragear?

I think extragear would be perfectly fine, at least for the beginning.
Some of the most popular KDE apps, like Amarok, live in extragear.
Plus, there we have the maximum of freedom. We can't claim our
independence on the one hand and ask for inclusion in a core module on
the other.

> what do you think guys?

I'm all fo a move as soon as 2.0 is out of the door. What does the
rest of the Krew think?

bye,
Jonas

[Fathi Boudra]

Hi,

Thanks Sebas for the answers :)

> what do you think guys?

(with Debian maintainer and contributor to Krusader hat)
IMHO, join KDE's SVN is the way to go.
I don't see many disadvantages and many good points.

> * disadvantages
> - possibly losing history
> - migration effort

BTW, I guess history can be kept using svnadmin dump.
Not sure which parties need to be involved.

cheers,

Fathi

[Sebastian Kügler]

On Tuesday 25 November 2008 23:31:23 Jonas Bähr wrote:
> Since 2.0.0 would be our first KDE-4 release, it would be an
> acceptable point to beginn with a blank history. Sebastian, you
> mentioned "possibly losing history" as a disadvantage. Does this mean
> there is a chance to keep our history? Under which conditions? My svn
> knowledge regarding such migrations is limited, but I could only think
> of a replay of our repository. This does not really make sense....

As David said (and which might not have made it to the krusader list), it
*might* be possible to import history using svk. But you need to talk to
sysadmin@k.o about that. So I cannot be conclusive here.

> > i think it has other advantages not mentioned here (mostly from PR
> > perspective), but that aside, i would like to know which module
> > krusader would be getting into. ideally, i'd like to see krusader in
> > a package that usually gets installed by default, which (i *think*)
> > is not the situation with extragear?
>
> I think extragear would be perfectly fine, at least for the beginning.
> Some of the most popular KDE apps, like Amarok, live in extragear.
> Plus, there we have the maximum of freedom. We can't claim our
> independence on the one hand and ask for inclusion in a core module on
> the other.

Well, installed by default is ambiguous. If you're referring to kdebase, I
think that is not an option for Krusader (at least not in the current
situation). We're already shipping two filemanagers with it (while, with KDE4,
we've tried really hard to get the number of apps in the standard modules down
to one per type (i.e. one image viewer, one video player, ...). Extragear, to
*me* sounds like a sensible option indeed, but ultimately it's up to module
maintainers where Krusader can find its home.

> > what do you think guys?
>
> I'm all fo a move as soon as 2.0 is out of the door. What does the
> rest of the Krew think?

Cheers,

[Rafi Yanai]

I´m following the disscution from afar (Chile right now..), I havn´t commited any code for quite sometime and when I´ll come back I´ll probably concentrate on bug fixes - but I feel that the general mood is to accept the offer.

I don´t feel that I should cast a vote on this matter due to the reasons above - but why don´t the krew vote on this issue ? If most people are comfartable with the idea - we can talk about details like saving history and the right point in time to do it later, if the krew rather contiue with the current SVN - than the details are irrelevent :)

Keep up the great work (both on KDE and Krusader),
Rafi.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJJLTW2AAoJEGdNh9WRGQ759JcIAIb77OkZcWQTEE43CPoKh4fC
9d2s1SsDPik1r6tCdmwbtoKhyKU4JJLuh+4cVWoOyjEBu79+NENAlo3Ysudn56UV
0BEJBk0+kJauZ0e02ri7nV08+g/EP9cWKVKWMr7KwAP8bW3HRG3CTYSzcybDNUVg
1KmoDXniF7N4J52cH1T5lgShpSiWiUCnLISiZzO5M4i5z2j2sejO1P/mTUhdMHnu
G8m70kiCtZPVOHkR9eH+zMp3zi+0pNWJDxz5fnff5at+2AJ6GkyjU3JFrXRVXo4G
EwIsWBNiqYJgkU3sied04jCinmMEIyeJ0L9x+dpwNTiutMgsrWYkuASeBeFZEhI=
=wvve
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Csaba Karai]

I don't have any objection to move to the KDE repository, if the
history is kept,
and KDE's repository is at least as stable as sourceforge (no
connectivity/performance problems).

Csaba

On nov. 27, 22:18, "Rafi Yanai" <rafi.ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I´m following the disscution from afar (Chile right now..), I havn´t
> commited any code for quite sometime and when I´ll come back I´ll probably
> concentrate on bug fixes - but I feel that the general mood is to accept the
> offer.
>
> I don´t feel that I should cast a vote on this matter due to the reasons
> above - but why don´t the krew vote on this issue ? If most people are
> comfartable with the idea - we can talk about details like saving history
> and the right point in time to do it later, if the krew rather contiue with
> the current SVN - than the details are irrelevent :)
>
> Keep up the great work (both on KDE and Krusader),
> Rafi.
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Sebastian Kügler <se...@kde.org> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 25 November 2008 23:31:23 Jonas Bähr wrote:
> > > Since 2.0.0 would be our first KDE-4 release, it would be an
> > > acceptable point to beginn with a blank history. Sebastian, you
> > > mentioned "possibly losing history" as a disadvantage. Does this mean
> > > there is a chance to keep our history? Under which conditions? My svn
> > > knowledge regarding such migrations is limited, but I could only think
> > > of a replay of our repository. This does not really make sense....
>
> > As David said (and which might not have made it to the krusader list), it
> > *might* be possible to import history using svk. But you need to talk to

> > sysad...@k.o about that. So I cannot be conclusive here.