Return-Path: X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at site Authentication-Results: linux.site (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kde.org Received: from postbox.kde.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postbox.kde.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867B8BF274; Sat, 22 Aug 2015 09:32:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kde.org; s=default; t=1440235945; bh=WhGhdxvdvRs04JdzjAkPcBVPmx7putlUE3ka9dvMIoc=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From; b=mvxeMMGebkZKq7hekRypkPvt6S8lidA/8vQ3AC5Kft8HDmj8lDUpvOo0VXwCF0OG+ iAOPKxYtxclf8PgYvgK8NIzr56CwcdlNm3/PpoSe20P3I1DGFpDDMFtW5tOD05SSHz 5L6PCQyb+KFW1GrXgcm+eHshzJh3U8nHcyd8Vw2E= X-Original-To: kde-pim@kde.org Delivered-To: kde-pim@localhost.kde.org X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at site From: Volker Krause To: KDEPIM Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 11:31:38 +0200 Message-ID: <11737387.KAAPH2KlE3@vkpc5> Organization: KDE User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.16.6-2-desktop; KDE/4.14.7; x86_64; git-c97b13e; 2014-12-30) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Kde-pim] Phabricator Project Setup X-BeenThere: kde-pim@kde.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list Reply-To: KDE PIM List-Id: KDE PIM List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1910646461178264940==" Errors-To: kde-pim-bounces@kde.org Sender: "kde-pim" --===============1910646461178264940== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2440608.7aDuJBW7cK"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" --nextPart2440608.7aDuJBW7cK Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi, I've talked to Ben, the current Phabricator test setup would actually b= e=20 usable for "production" use for task/project management for us, without= =20 causing the sysadmins unreasonable trouble when migrating to the full=20= production deployment of Phabricator eventually. Phabricator project layout it orthogonal to repo layout, so we can stru= cture=20 this however we want. Among other teams I see at least the following la= youts: - single project for everything - a project per release - a project per component/module (ie. close to the repo layout) How do we want to structure this? I would start with a single project to not fragment this too much, as w= e have=20 a relatively small team actually looking into this, so everyone is look= ing at=20 most sub-projects anyway. And should we eventually hit scaling limits, = we can=20 always expand this I think. We of course should also talk about what we actually want to put in the= re. My=20 current motivation is having a place to collect the tasks for getting m= ore of=20 the former pimlibs into KF5, and anything else I run into on the way th= ere=20 that we eventually should clean up/improve. regards, Volker --nextPart2440608.7aDuJBW7cK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iD8DBQBV2EF9f5bM1k0S0kcRAk9cAJ4vHEh9JkT3Jy3EfxII7nP9HPmxrQCgjeLF eYXCyN9NRAyC6CHeNnWZN10= =Y8W4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2440608.7aDuJBW7cK-- --===============1910646461178264940== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KS0RFIFBJTSBt YWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qga2RlLXBpbUBrZGUub3JnCmh0dHBzOi8vbWFpbC5rZGUub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8va2RlLXBpbQpLREUgUElNIGhvbWUgcGFnZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vcGltLmtkZS5vcmcv --===============1910646461178264940==--