Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Hello, I don't want to dive too much in this particular thread. A couple of things I'd like to bring though. I won't quote what I agree with but just what worries me a bit. On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 21:37:09 CEST Martin Flöser wrote: > [...] > With extragear gone I don't really see the need of

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 6. Juli 2017 07:10:01 MESZ schrieb Luca Beltrame : >Il giorno Thu, 06 Jul 2017 07:07:06 +0200 >Martin Flöser ha scritto: > >> I understand your point: you don't want that the quality assurance >> ends up on the shoulders of the distros. And I agree. >

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Thursday, 6 July 2017 01:19:00 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: > More like "Practical Freedom"? > The KDE community imo shouldnt be about "technicalities", thats up to > how each project tries to contribute or work towards that ultimate goal > that is freedom. > Wiki2Learn for example

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 23:12:38 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On 2017 M07 5, Wed 12:17:10 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 22:28:24 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > On 2017 M07 2, Sun 03:43:57 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > > In my

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 2017-07-05 23:29, schrieb David Edmundson: 2. Remove playground Lots of projects get started and die. I think it's important to have some flag (however you want to call it) that says; CI admins, translators and even packagers should not bother looking at this project yet. Otherwise we

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Il giorno Thu, 06 Jul 2017 07:07:06 +0200 Martin Flöser ha scritto: > I understand your point: you don't want that the quality assurance > ends up on the shoulders of the distros. And I agree. See my other response (with changed subject) in the thread. The discussion we had

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 2017-07-05 22:27, schrieb Luca Beltrame: Il giorno Wed, 05 Jul 2017 21:37:09 +0200 Martin Flöser ha scritto: To me the review process always felt weird and also like a relict from other times. I contributed to overall KDE something like 100 k While projects with

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Il giorno Wed, 5 Jul 2017 22:54:50 +0200 (CEST) Boudewijn Rempt ha scritto: > I suck at code review, personally... I can only see what's wrong with > code once I get a bug report and have to fix the code. If someone tries to ship you code that does not compile, you'll notice

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 2017-07-05 22:18, schrieb Luigi Toscano: Martin Flöser ha scritto: Am 2017-07-04 13:20, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: The applications lifecycle policy needs an update Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? Hi all, I'm now going to propose a rather radical change to

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Am 05.07.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Alexander Neundorf: > On 2017 M07 5, Wed 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: >> On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: >>> Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? >> How about Freedom? > The "KDE - Digital Freedom" is

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Am 05.07.2017 um 16:23 schrieb Kevin Ottens: > Hello, > > On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: >> On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: >>> Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? >> >> How about Freedom? >> Fits "KDE - be

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On 2017 M07 5, Wed 13:14:19 CEST Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On woensdag 5 juli 2017 12:17:10 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > IOW, knowing the organization as a whole decided on some sort of direction > > at least for a while would prompt me into looking beyond my usual comfort > > zone. By doing that

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

> 2. Remove playground > Lots of projects get started and die. I think it's important to have some flag (however you want to call it) that says; CI admins, translators and even packagers should not bother looking at this project yet. Otherwise we waste a lot of people's time. The review

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On 2017 M07 5, Wed 12:17:10 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > Hello, > > On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 22:28:24 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On 2017 M07 2, Sun 03:43:57 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > ... > > > > > In my opinion our answer to "where we want to go" was supposed to be > > > something else

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Alexander Neundorf ha scritto: > On 2017 M07 5, Wed 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: >> On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: >>> Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? >> >> How about Freedom? > > The "KDE - Digital Freedom" is one of my

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On 2017 M07 5, Wed 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: > On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: > > Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? > > How about Freedom? The "KDE - Digital Freedom" is one of my favourite T-shirts... Still, there exists

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Luca Beltrame wrote: > While projects with strong stewardship like KWin, Plasma or Krita > (*not* implying there aren't others: I'm mentioning the ones > that come to mind) ensure a continued review and code quality, how > would you ensure that, without review periods (or

Release code review and quality (was Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy)

Il giorno Wed, 05 Jul 2017 22:33:13 +0200 Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > Anyways, in general it is completely in my spirit; little upfront > requirements and then judge the quality > of what falls out of it. Honest question: onto whom would the burden fall? As a

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Martin Flöser ha scritto: > > Am 2017-07-04 13:20, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > >> The applications lifecycle policy needs an update > >> > >> Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? > >> > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Il giorno Wed, 05 Jul 2017 21:37:09 +0200 Martin Flöser ha scritto: > To me the review process always felt weird and also like a relict > from other times. I contributed to overall KDE something like 100 k While projects with strong stewardship like KWin, Plasma or Krita

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017, at 09:37 PM, Martin Flöser wrote: > Am 2017-07-04 13:20, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > > The applications lifecycle policy needs an update > > > > Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? > > > > Hi all, > > I'm now going to propose a rather radical

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Martin Flöser ha scritto: > Am 2017-07-04 13:20, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: >> The applications lifecycle policy needs an update >> >> Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? >> > > Hi all, > > I'm now going to propose a rather radical change to the process: > > 1. Remove

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Boudewijn Rempt ha scritto: > On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Martin Flöser wrote: >> Extragear: to me extragear is a relict from the time of the big one KDE svn >> trunk repository. There was "KDE" and everything else, aka. extragear. When I >> started to compile KDE software it looked to me like something

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Martin Flöser wrote: > I'm now going to propose a rather radical change to the process: > > 1. Remove extragear > 2. Remove playground > 3. Remove the 2 week Review process > > Let me explain the reasoning. > > Extragear: to me extragear is a relict from the time of the big

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 2017-07-04 13:20, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: The applications lifecycle policy needs an update Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? Hi all, I'm now going to propose a rather radical change to the process: 1. Remove extragear 2. Remove playground 3. Remove the 2

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Am 5. Juli 2017 13:14:19 MESZ schrieb "Sebastian Kügler" : >Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? Yes! Many other software sources (Apple, Microsoft, ...) are currently moving away from privacy, and the Free and Open Source communities are more needed then

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 15:05:26 CEST Clemens Toennies wrote: > On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: > > Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? > > How about Freedom? > Fits "KDE - be free". > There is also no freedom without privacy. Way

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On 5 July 2017 at 13:54, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > Thanks, I'd think not "earlier stage" but explicitly "playground" because in > the meantime the unmaintained project might lost its "reviewed" stamp. > Technology and other requirements move forward. Example: unmaintained >

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On Jul 5, 2017 13:14, "Sebastian Kügler" wrote: > > > Should we make privacy our main focus for the next 5 years? How about Freedom? Fits "KDE - be free". There is also no freedom without privacy. Greetings, Clemens.

Re: [kde-community] Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

> Maybe something like: > > "Documentation appropriate to the project: API documentation, user > documentation (including docbook or other format documented by the > Documentation team)" Updated Jonathan

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On 5 July 2017 at 13:04, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > Why not? I can imagine we can make the process more dynamic. > Whole apps or their parts can go back to being maintained, what seems to be > a core property of FOSS. > > If so how about back-arrow from Unmaintained? Probably not

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

I added in a requirement for released apps so they can't release with unreleased software deps * These projects should depend only on stable released software (or software known it will get a stable release before the project does). Jonathan

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 13:14:19 CEST Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On woensdag 5 juli 2017 12:17:10 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > IOW, knowing the organization as a whole decided on some sort of direction > > at least for a while would prompt me into looking beyond my usual comfort > > zone.

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On 4 July 2017 at 13:20, 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 > > Jonathan > Hi Looking good. One thing:

Re: [kde-community] Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 01:45:14PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > > > I used the Sanity Checklist I made for the releasing extragear page as > > the list of some stuff people will look at in kdereview > >

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Harald Sitter ha scritto: > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Christian Mollekopf >>From where I am standing we should have a stage before playground. > Scratch repos if you will (although those are slated for deprecation > without replacement). This addresses the code-dumping github-like use >

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > Overall I just find the cost/benefit factor in the beginning of a > project not at all good when using KDE infrastructure. > I have to request repos and can't just create them, I have to request > tarballs to be uploaded instead of just uploading them, I have to

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > I used the Sanity Checklist I made for the releasing extragear page as > the list of some stuff people will look at in kdereview > https://techbase.kde.org/ReleasingExtragearSoftware#Sanity_Checklist > what else should go in here? It doesn't require docbook docs,

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

I've added in the various other release methods, apps,kf5 and plasma and filled in text as I see it. https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle/Draft Are the module coordinators still used and a sensible way to get into KDE Applications?

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

On woensdag 5 juli 2017 12:17:10 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > IOW, knowing the organization as a whole decided on some sort of direction > at least for a while would prompt me into looking beyond my usual comfort > zone. By doing that with the two examples above we might see a stronger > influx of

Re: [kde-community] Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 11:44:40AM +0200, Harald Sitter wrote: > We do not review the maintenance of the baseline we established during > review. I am guessing we do not re-review because the expectation is > that the authors are able to follow our community policies after the > initial review.

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 23:20:18 CEST Christian Mollekopf wrote: > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017, at 03:43 AM, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > I hope for another fate. Because of that, I don't think this is a proper > > conclusion to the Evolving KDE effort or a proper answer to Paul's talk. > > While I

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 22:28:24 CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On 2017 M07 2, Sun 03:43:57 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > ... > > > In my opinion our answer to "where we want to go" was supposed to be > > something else than "nowhere in particular". Then I think we're falling > > very

Re: latest draft for mission (and strategy)

Hello, On Sunday, 2 July 2017 20:06:41 CEST Sebastian Kügler wrote: > On zondag 2 juli 2017 03:43:57 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > In my opinion our answer to "where we want to go" was supposed to be > > something else than "nowhere in particular". Then I think we're falling > > very short on

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:06:50 AM CEST Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Tuesday 04 July 2017 23:34:20 Christian Mollekopf wrote: > > What I meant to propose was more that instead of being initially in a > > temporary location, > > and then having to choose one of "proper" ones and go through review,

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Christian Mollekopf wrote: >> This comes again from the diversity in view: for me the review, with all >> its limits, it's the baseline. >> As showed in the discussion, releasing from playground is not more >> complicated than other type of