On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Christian Mollekopf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 01:20 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote: >> The applications lifecycle policy needs an update >> >> Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? >> >> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle/Draft >> > > Looks good to me for what it currently is. > > In general I think: > * it should be ok to release from playground for years, or even > potentially forever.
Sorry, but I disagree there. Releasing from Playground is allowed merely to allow developers to get feedback from early adopters (who understand the software may possess kittens, open blackholes and start a zombie uprising) Once an application is ready (or is being used) for production purposes by users (and it's own developers count as users) then it should be headed to Extragear/Applications. We're doing ourselves a disservice by not reviewing each others code for issues, which is something KDE Review helps facilitate. > * going to extragear/applications should be an extra quality badge where > you sign up for certain requirements (which is why I think it should be > possible to release from extragear forever. Perhaps some project is just > not interested in translations for instance...) Pretty sure that not allowing translations is a violation of various commitments which are expected of KDE software as it impedes accessibility and usability by portions of our user base. > * Abolishing the extragear/applications differentiation at this level > would make more sense to me (extragear does have a second class feel to > it), instead applications should just declare that they are part of the > applications release. This would indeed also ease transitioning between > releases and dealing with the versioning should be up to the maintainers > (of course versions that go down are not at all something that should be > accepted ever anywhere). > > Cheers, > Christian Regards, Ben
