3 new templates for KDev3

Hi,

having to deal with a "I want a truly empty
project" guy on IRC again,
I'm wondering if there are strong objections against 3 new
templates:

a) automake: Makefile.am + .kdevelop file, nothing more
b) qmake: foo.pro + .kdevelop file, nothing else
c) custom makefile: Makefile + .kdevelop file, nothing else

The 3 buildsystem files would be completely empty as well,
its just to
keep our parsers happy.

Objections? Comments? (its a 10 minute job and I'm willing
to do it to
make those people happy, plus those templates need zero
maintenance)

Andreas

-- 
A visit to a strange place will bring fresh work.

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On Friday 24 August 2007 11:29, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having to deal with a "I want a truly empty
project" guy on IRC again,
> I'm wondering if there are strong objections against 3
new templates:
>
> a) automake: Makefile.am + .kdevelop file, nothing
more
> b) qmake: foo.pro + .kdevelop file, nothing else
> c) custom makefile: Makefile + .kdevelop file, nothing
else
>
> The 3 buildsystem files would be completely empty as
well, its just to
> keep our parsers happy.
>
> Objections? Comments? (its a 10 minute job and I'm
willing to do it to
> make those people happy, plus those templates need zero
maintenance)
>
> Andreas

Perhaps we should offer them on kdevelop.org instead? The
occurance of the 
next 3.5.x release for KDE is up in the air, and seeing as
how we're not 
really working on kdevelop 3.4, i'd rather not put out a
separate release.

Not against the idea at all, but would rather provide our
users an easier way 
to get to the new templates rather than having to make a new
release.
-- 
Matt

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On Friday 24 August 2007 20:58:24 Matt Rogers wrote:
> Perhaps we should offer them on kdevelop.org instead?
The occurance of the
> next 3.5.x release for KDE is up in the air.
AFAIK there will be a release in October. Or was it canceled
?

> how we're not 
> really working on kdevelop 3.4, i'd rather not put out
a separate release.
I'm doing binary snapshots every two weeks, and the code is
improving every 
week.

> Not against the idea at all, but would rather provide
our users an easier
> way to get to the new templates rather than having to
make a new release.
Why can't we have both ? 


-- 
Amilcar Lucas
Webmaster
The KDevelop project

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On 24.08.07 13:58:24, Matt Rogers wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2007 11:29, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > having to deal with a "I want a truly empty
project" guy on IRC again,
> > I'm wondering if there are strong objections
against 3 new templates:
> >
> > a) automake: Makefile.am + .kdevelop file, nothing
more
> > b) qmake: foo.pro + .kdevelop file, nothing else
> > c) custom makefile: Makefile + .kdevelop file,
nothing else
> >
> > The 3 buildsystem files would be completely empty
as well, its just to
> > keep our parsers happy.
> >
> > Objections? Comments? (its a 10 minute job and I'm
willing to do it to
> > make those people happy, plus those templates need
zero maintenance)
> >
> > Andreas
> 
> Perhaps we should offer them on kdevelop.org instead?
The occurance of the 
> next 3.5.x release for KDE is up in the air, and seeing
as how we're not 
> really working on kdevelop 3.4, i'd rather not put out
a separate release.
> 
> Not against the idea at all, but would rather provide
our users an easier way 
> to get to the new templates rather than having to make
a new release.

I'd like to see another release and last I heard there was a
KDE 3.5.8
release "scheduled" for September or Oct. There
are quite some fixes
(think KDirWatch on custom projects) that make a new release
important -
IMHO.

I'm not saying we should release on our own, except if its
certain that
3.5.7 is the last KDE release.

Andreas

-- 
Do not overtax your powers.

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On 25.08.07 22:16:25, Aleix wrote:
> Hi
> Maybe KHotNewStuff could be used to obtain/distribute
templates, maybe not
> for kdevelop3 but surely for kdevelop4.

Yeap, thats on the (aka mine) todo list. Same for plugins.

Andreas

-- 
Tuesday After Lunch is the cosmic time of the week.

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On 24.08.07 18:29:44, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> having to deal with a "I want a truly empty
project" guy on IRC again,
> I'm wondering if there are strong objections against 3
new templates:
> 
> a) automake: Makefile.am + .kdevelop file, nothing
more
> b) qmake: foo.pro + .kdevelop file, nothing else
> c) custom makefile: Makefile + .kdevelop file, nothing
else
> 
> The 3 buildsystem files would be completely empty as
well, its just to
> keep our parsers happy.
> 
> Objections? Comments? (its a 10 minute job and I'm
willing to do it to
> make those people happy, plus those templates need zero
maintenance)

Hmm, there's one problem: The new templates would introduce
new user
visible strings :( (I don't want to describe the empty qmake
template as
"simple Qmake/Qt4 hello world app".

I guess we need to go the "publish the templates on our
website" route
:(

Andreas

-- 
Good news.  Ten weeks from Friday will be a pretty good
day.

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On 8/27/07, Andreas Pakulat <apakugmx.de> wrote:
> On 24.08.07 18:29:44, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> I guess we need to go the "publish the templates
on our website" route
> :(
Ok, this is the last straw....
I propose we either
1) create a kdevelop/3.5 or kdevelop/3.4.5 branch
or
2) unfreeze (both messages and featuress) KDE/3.5/kdevelop
branch

We could have then my ruby support features, Megan's astyle
fixes and
Andreas' templates and maybe something else. Looks like
Amilcar has a
reliable way to do fast binary releases so releasing that in
2-3
months from now should not be a problem.

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

On Monday 27 August 2007 15:16:06 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On 8/27/07, Andreas Pakulat <apakugmx.de> wrote:
> > On 24.08.07 18:29:44, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > I guess we need to go the "publish the
templates on our website" route
> >
> > :(
>
> Ok, this is the last straw....
> I propose we either
> 1) create a kdevelop/3.5 or kdevelop/3.4.5 branch
> or
> 2) unfreeze (both messages and featuress)
KDE/3.5/kdevelop branch
>
> We could have then my ruby support features, Megan's
astyle fixes and
> Andreas' templates and maybe something else. Looks like
Amilcar has a
> reliable way to do fast binary releases so releasing
that in 2-3
> months from now should not be a problem.
>
> _______________________________________________
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel

I vote for 1 
Mathieu

_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-develkdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel