On 01-02-2016 19:31, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Monday 01 February 2016 13:04:37 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
I'm not against automated testing at all, I just think it doesn't work
at
the highest level and bears pitfalls of distros gaming the system, or
people actually care more about the number of points they get than the
actual user experience.
I think we have to readjust the perspective here a bit. I really
appreciate
Thomas' initiative because there definitely could be better
collaboration
between distributions and KDE. We have the common goal to get our
software to
users in the best possible shape. We shouldn't see that as a gaming,
blaming,
or judging, but we should see this as an opportunity to work together
in a
better way. How this is then expressed to the public is a second
thought, and
should be decided together with the distributions.
So defining and discussing criteria which make up a good experience,
listing
and communicating requirements, talking to each other about what is
missing,
what needs to be fixed, and where it should be fixed without playing
upstream-
downstream-ping-pong, sharing and possibly aligning roadmaps, all these
things
and more could happen through the distribution outreach program. This
would be
really wonderful.
In essence I think this is about better communication between KDE and
distributions, so that we can productively work on what needs to be
fixed,
avoid misunderstandings, and keep a common momentum.
I would like to propose a middle ground solution hoping it will
contribute to the discussion. It will imho serve everyone's interests;
KDE, distributions and users.
The way I see it, the issue breaks down to 3 core areas as discussed so
far:
1. KDE recommended standards
Recommendation: Provide a checklist of everything KDE considers
important (configuration, dependencies, versions etc) as discussed in
this thread.
This way everyone can check what KDE proposes as an optimal environment
for the software it provides to run on.
2. Distribution specific implementation
Recommendation: Provide a place for distributions themselves to share
their implementation.
This could be a wiki table of some sort with a checklist and comments
related to the items outlined in #1. This way distributions have the
opportunity to explain in short their motives and demonstrate their
reasoning for not providing something the expected way. This also helps
users to have a more clear understanding of the goals and methods of
each distribution that ships KDE software, and at the same time avoid
any misunderstanding that could occur by people perceiving this as KDE
pointing the finger to some specific implementation strategy or
distribution.
3. Review
Recommendation: From a distribution's perspective, I would expect
distributions to be trusted to provide true information, so any
reviewing should not be needed.
However, if in the long term this proves to be necessary, it could be
done in specified or random intervals. A script could be used as
suggested, a KDE assigned person could handle this, or both. Some text
of the type 'This page was last reviewed by KDE on X date' could show to
users that the related information is valid and up to date.
Badges could be assigned here and some visualization if KDE decides they
help, as well as some grouping/sorting of the distros in relation to
their appraisal.
And of course, in cases that some information is considered invalid,
make sure to have open channels of communication with distributions to
avoid misunderstandings. =)
Neofytos Kolokotronis
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
