Hello, On Sunday, 2 July 2017 13:52:48 CEST Sandro Knauß wrote: > > 2) the third one (libkdepim) I'm forbidden to link against since it's > > private API to kdepim (turned into a dumping ground apparently...). > > > > Obviously, as soon as libkdepim is cleaned up (which I regularly hear it's > > supposed to happen) and features are moved in proper frameworks I'll drop > > it from the 3rdparty folder. Didn't happen yet... > > Well kdepim is a open group. kdepim is not giving API stability because, we > need space to cleanup, but the team is not very big, so it takes time.
I think I know that quite well. > But I don't see why you are not just link against the relevant parts of > kdepim and remove the copy. And than tell kdepim that you are using these > files, so the team can take that into account when touching the files. As I mentioned earlier I don't because that is private API meant only for consumption within kdepim applications. Depending on such API is wrong. > Additionally you can add tests and cleanup the code yourself. That would be assuming I have the bandwidth for that: I don't. > As fallback you can still copy the files as temporally solution in future, > if things break. > > The relevant point for me is that copies of code have a slash back, > sometimes fast sometimes it takes much time. Sure, I'm not in love with the current situation either. > But what I can say from my work in Debian is that often Debian needs to > coordinate the discussion to get rid of copies, that could have been avoided > if the different projects had been talking directly with each other. > > For me the existence of those copies and no discussions with kdepim are a > -1 for moving it out of Review. You're assuming this wasn't discussed previously. It's been discussed a long time ago in person. It's not like no one in kdepim knew about it. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
