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

El dimecres, 26 de juliol de 2017, a les 12:39:12 CEST, Jonathan Riddell va escriure: > At the BoF today we approved the draft lifecycle policy as a > reflection of current practice. > > One addition is that apps in kdereview should take no more than two > months and after that should be moved

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

We'll have a BoF for that on Wednesday 11:30 in room 2.4. On Sunday, 23 July 2017 19:08:12 CEST Valorie Zimmerman wrote: > Hello folks, I would just like to ask if there is a BoF scheduled > about this? Has a Phab board been created? As a GSoC admin for KDE, we > are always trying to urge/require

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

Hey, > Having automated checks would be great but I see no practical proposal for > how to get those. I'm not even sure it's possible to automate questions > like "should this be translated?" or "are all the licences clear?". well for "are all the licences clear?" are several tools to check the

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

Am 17. Juli 2017 18:19:43 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Riddell : >On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Martin Flöser wrote: >> Am 2017-07-17 17:47, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: >> >I propose to make this final if there's no further comments. >> >> as I explained: I think the

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

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Martin Flöser wrote: > Am 2017-07-17 17:47, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > >I propose to make this final if there's no further comments. > > as I explained: I think the review process should be removed, > playground should be removed. > > There were both

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Monday, 17 July 2017 18:01:39 CEST Martin Flöser wrote: > Am 2017-07-17 17:47, schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > > I propose to make this final if there's no further comments. > > as I explained: I think the review process should be removed, playground > should be removed. > > There were both

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Am 2017-07-12 00:20, schrieb Albert Astals Cid: El dimecres, 5 de juliol de 2017, a les 21:37:09 CEST, Martin Flöser va escriure: 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 mo

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

El dimecres, 5 de juliol de 2017, a les 21:37:09 CEST, Martin Flöser va escriure: > 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, &g

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Il giorno Thu, 06 Jul 2017 07:44:49 +0200 Martin Gräßlin ha scritto: > could we get a transcript of the discussion on IRC? It was on the Italian KDE dev channel, so even if I had a transcript, it would be hardly useful. ;) It was just a couple of points, saying that we need

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: 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

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: 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

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'

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 radica

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: 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: [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: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On 4 July 2017 at 13:20, Jonathan Riddell <j...@jriddell.org> 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 &g

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

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

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: 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

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Il giorno Tue, 04 Jul 2017 23:04:08 +0200 Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > * it should be ok to release from playground for years, or even > potentially forever. That would impact translations, and IMO it can be easily abused as a "get out of jail free" card that avoids

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 11:16 PM, Luigi Toscano wrote: >> Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: >>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 01:20 PM, Jonathan Riddell wrote: >>>> The applications lifecycle policy needs an update &g

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

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, > we would instead > start with a permanent location and then you

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017, at 11:16 PM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > > 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 ar

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Christian Mollekopf <chrig...@fastmail.fm> 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? >

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Christian Mollekopf ha scritto: > 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/Applicat

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

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

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:43:32PM +0200, Kevin Ottens wrote: > Hello, > > On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:20:43 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > The applications lifecycle policy needs an update > > > > Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages? > &g

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

On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 14:27:07 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > > Are we focusing on the graph for now, and then we can move to the content > > of the page, or can we start the general discussion as well? > > Go wild :) > I think

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

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Are we focusing on the graph for now, and then we can move to the content of > the page, or can we start the general discussion as well? Go wild :) Jonathan

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:20:43 CEST 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 Are we focusing on the graph for n

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Kevin Ottens <er...@kde.org> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:20:43 CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote: >> The applications lifecycle policy needs an update >> >> Is this a good current state of it or are there more stages

Re: Applications Lifecycle Policy

Hello, On Tuesday, 4 July 2017 13:20:43 CEST 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 Didn't we have cases