[gst-devel] Moving applications to GNOME CVS

[David I. Lehn]

* Thomas Vander Stichele <thomas at urgent.rug.ac.be> [20021104 13:04]:
> > * Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus at linuxrising.org> [20021104 09:59]:
> > > Since we are planing on moving some of our GNOME GUI apps to GNOME CVS I
> > > think we need to get started by getting all who need/want it CVS
> > > accounts in GNOME CVS. At the bottom of this page:
> > > http://developer.gnome.org/tools/cvs.html
> > > 
> > 
> > We are?
> > Why?
> > Which "some"?
> > What's wrong with keeping code where it is now?
> 
> gst-player is moving to the gnome repository as has been discussed on irc, 
> and you no doubt saw menthos's mail.
> 

Guess I missed that on irc..
Who is menthos?
[searches through gst-devel archives...]
Ah.. so back in July (!) there were 4 messages from the middle of a
discussion.  Didn't look like anything was decided from that.  Guess
after 3.5 months I must have assumed that topic was over.  ;)


> The reason is very simple :
> a) it needs translation
> b) it's going to be a full-fledged gnome app.
> 

What does that have to do with where the code is?  Anyone can send in
patches for translations or gnomeappness.

I'm not trying to be negative about this... just trying to understand
why we should go to the trouble of moving stuff.  For instance, the
magic CVS "common" dir we have in gst CVS is going to break with this
move.  Now someone is going to have to keep that in sync across CVSes.
Fun.

Are releases still going to be on sf?

In theory I would be keeping the debian/ dir up-to-date.  I've been a
little slack about that though, sorry.  So I guess I need GNOME CVS
access just to update that?


> I don't see any other apps moving any time soon however.
> 

Why are the other two, editor and recorder, treated different?  They
could certainly use similar patches I suppose.

-dave