Am Montag, 13. Oktober 2014, 11.29:31 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> Hi all,

Good morning Thomas and Co


> > > 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
> > >, once that is available). Would that be considered ok?
> > > For a decentral MediaWiki installation, could accounts be used
> > > for login?
> > 
> > KDE identify access works for all three wikis so it's possible.
> What I meant is: Could accounts be made to work for a fourth,
> RKWard- specific wiki? Or would this even be considered mandatory?

Just talked with some sysadmin and incubation guy. It's just mandatory that 
the sysadmins of KDE have access to the (KDE) infrastructure. Everything else 
is possible if it's technically possible.

> > 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
> 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_ migrating.

Makes sense. And their are several possibilities. Setting up a wiki on KDE 
infrastructure for you, leaving wiki on sf for the moment and giving sysadmins 
access, etc. pp.

> > > Using wold have a rather high wanna-have
> > > rank, as downloads are one area where 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
> > >, 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?

The git repository addresses would stay the same, but where they are logically 
in and such would change as they are moved from playground to 

> And what - if anything - will change, once we
> are ready to enter "extragear"?

It's mostly a status thing. Showing that you're stable software rather then 
something planned and not yet released but hey you're already stable software 
anyway. The review is mostly to check if the minimal standards are met like 
working i18n, documentation, etc.

Hope that makes it clearer and otherwise don't hesitate to ask. Next time I'll 
answer more quickly.

Best regards

Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
Take corrective actions from your mobile device.
RKWard-devel mailing list

Reply via email to