[Development] QtWindowsExtras

[Knoll Lars]

On 2/15/13 11:13 AM, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:01:31PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Knoll Lars <Lars.Knoll at digia.com>
>>wrote:
>> > Well, I already gave that my approval some days ago in another thread.
>> >
>> > I've now created the repository.
>> > ssh://codereview.qt-project.org:29418/qt/qtwinextras.git.
>> >
>ehm. yeah. and i fixed the setup. ;)

Well, I did as good as I could :)

Can we please document all the required steps on the wiki? It's not
healthy if only one or two people know how to do this.

>the project is currently not CI-controlled. is this expected to change
>soon?
>
>> Lars, just double checking for making sure: you meant to create
>> qt/qtwinextras or more like playground as playground/qtmacextras?
>> 
>this question is actually why i didn't create the project to start with
>- x11extras is under qt/, while macextras is in playground/.

Yes, we had both as a precedence, but under qt/ simply makes more sense,
esp. given that moving projects is not easy with gerrit.
>
>anyway, i'll use this to raise a general point: i think the idea to put
>new projects physically under playground/ and then actually moving them
>upon graduation is counterproductive:
>- as we know, gerrit is too limited to actually allow it, and nobody has
>  bothered yet to do the manual work for the already graduated project
>  (i can give it a shot, but don't shout if i accidentally take down the
>  system ... (i'm positive it would be only temporary :D)).
>- changing the location of the repository is slightly disruptive
>- we have no process to "un-graduate" projects. think qtpim and the
>  sorts. this is "pr-wise unfair" to the projects which are actually
>  stable (but still must stay in playground for technical reasons).
>
>therefore i'd like to propose the following alteration of the process:
>- nothing changes for projects which are not meant to graduate on their
>  own. think playground/qtbinaryjson.
>- all other projects are created in the hierarchy they are aiming for
>- their maturity is represented solely by some external meta
>  information:
>  - a wiki page (do we have one which could serve this already?)
>  - the set of modules init-repository would clone by default (see also
>    https://codereview.qt-project.org/41547 and
>    https://codereview.qt-project.org/41548 (i plan to actually add more
>    in a later commit))
>    - alternatively, it would be possible to create a separate branch of
>      the supermodule which includes more submodules than the mainline
>      branches. it would be bothersome to maintain this, though.
>- projects which are positively abandoned could be physically moved to a
>  separate "namespace" (pending technical obstacles of actually moving)

This actually sounds good to me.

Cheers,
Lars