[Kolab-devel] [Proposal] New CVS Structure (again)

[Steffen Hansen]

On Friday 14 May 2004 22:22, Stuart Bingë wrote:
> After thinking about this problem for a while, I've come to the
> conclusion that perhaps it would be best to just forget about the
> whole reorganisation issue.

If you think that is the best idea, then so be it.

But please don't just give up on the issue because we/I have trouble 
getting it to work. If you still genuinly think that restructuring is 
better for the project, we should still do it! Also I don't want 
anybody to feel bad about this issue in any way, we will sort it out 
somehow I am sure.

How about the perl-kolab code if we keep the current server/ CVS module? 
The stuff in there was imported from the newest available package at 
the time we started hacking on it + my (relatively few, but to us 
important) changes. I fear that if the CVS structure does not suit your 
need also, you will develop your perl-kolab package elsewhere and we 
will not mutually benefit from improvements unless we burden ourselves 
with merging changes in often. How do we make sure that this works out?

> Considering I have virtually no idea what criteria other people have
> with regards to the Kolab CVS repository I do not think I am the best
> person to actually perform this reorganisation function. We have a
> system in place, albeit not the most optimal system, but one that
> clearly works for everyone, so why change it.

To me it seems that the major problem with the server/ module and 
Makefile based package-builder is that it is a pain while developing, 
but easy when creating packages.

Maybe we could keep the current CVS server/ module but adapt the 
Makefiles to provide targets that call shtool to copy files, provide 
@l_blah@ <=> blah substitutions etc.

How do you feel about using IRC for low-latency communication btw? I 
will hang around on #kolab on freenode.net in case anyone wants to join 
in and talk.

> I apologise for this inconvenience that I have caused - this has
> clearly been a failure on my part, although I can assure you my
> intentions were benevolent. This all started from my need to work on
> the Kolab daemon and consequently the perl-kolab modules -
> unfortunately trying to do this from the current repository is
> tedious at best, and so I merely wished to make development work that
> much easier to perform.

I know, and that's what we all want (wanted?) to benefit from. 

> Indeed, if the urge to reorganise CVS reappears we can at least leave
> it until there are no urgent deadlines to meet, as is the case
> currently.

You probably hit the nail on the head there. If only I had time to 
actually fiddle with this stuff for a couple of days it would be nice, 
but unfortunately our schedule doesn't really allow for much of that 
right now.

> Whoever is in charge of the repository may as well remove the
> 'devel', 'releng' and 'utils' directories.

Please don't delete anything before we have merged any valuable code 
from those modules.

-- 
Steffen Hansen          |       Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB
Senior Software Engineer|       http://www.klaralvdalens-datakonsult.se
                        |
                        |       Platform-independent
                        |       software solutions