Hi all,

On Friday 10 October 2014 21:40:42 Mario Fux wrote:
> Am Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014, 20.38:30 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > - More flexibility at the cost of more fragmentation
> Not that I want to talk bad about github, I know it not that good but I just
> want to understand. What's the flexibility of github that KDE doesn't have?

in short: No manifesto, including the commitment side. Which is not to say the 
KDE manifesto is asking for anything unreasonable, just to state the fact that 
it _is_ asking for some things.

> > For RKWard, a bunch of pages would fit into more than
> > one category (several into all three), and I don't think that would really
> > help. I'd like to keep the wiki in one place (on rkward.kde.org, once that
> > is available). Would that be considered ok? For a decentral MediaWiki
> > installation, could KDE.org accounts be used for login?
> KDE identify access works for all three wikis so it's possible.

What I meant is: Could KDE.org accounts be made to work for a fourth, RKWard-
specific wiki? Or would this even be considered mandatory?

> About the
> three wikis and an own for rkward that needs to be thought about. I think
> it's possible to have an own wiki but over time people will expect
> development stuff for rkward on Techbase and end user will of course search
> for end user documentation in Userbase.kde.org

Well, not saying this is set in stone for all times to come. But right now, 
essentially, the wiki is our website. I.e. it also covers news, download 
links, screenshots, etc. And some pages are organized quite orthogonal to the 
techbase / userbase split (e.g. the pages for installing on the various 
platforms). So, it would be much easier for us to keep things that way, 
initially, and then see where things are going, in the long run, _after_ 

> > Using downloads.kde.org wold have a rather high wanna-have
> > rank, as downloads are one area where SF.net tries particularly hard to
> > spoil their reputation. The target state would probably be having all our
> > services currently hosted on SF migrated to their counterparts on KDE.org,
> > and being accepted in extragear.
> This should then go through the review process. That means sending an email
> to kde-core-devel that you plan to move rkward from playground or outside
> ;-) to extragear (or kde-edu?) and then people will take a look, see if
> i18n works, code quality, etc. pp. This should and will be a constructive
> process of course.

This point is not entirely clear to me, yet, too. I think we'd be interested 
in starting moving (git first) rather soonish, after the upcoming release is 
out. However we wouldn't really be ready for "review" at that stage. Most 
importantly we'd want to take care of plugin i18n, and KF5 porting before it 
makes sense to get detailed feedback. These are among the very next high-level 
tasks we plan to work on, but neither is something to manage in a day or two.

Does that mean we'll be entering "playground", initially? Are "kdereview" and 
"playground" even tangible entities any more, these days, or just terms from 
the days of SVN? And what - if anything - will change, once we are ready to 
enter "extragear"?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
RKWard-devel mailing list

Reply via email to