<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.12.24 um 09:02 schrieb Ingo
Klöcker:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2848589.DJkKcVGEfx@daneel">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">On Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2024 01:17:41 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Justin
Zobel wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I'm a bit frustrated by our new application development pipeline.
I see applications appear on apps.kde.org and in official namespaces on
GitLab before they have passed KDE Review.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
In my opinion you are conflating two completely different things. Let's discuss
them separately.
Let's start with apps.kde.org.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I feel this is falsely advertising to the world that the app is ready
for use.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
I agree that this could be improved. A possible solution would be to use the
brand-new lifecycle attribute in repo-metadata to clearly mark apps that
haven't passed KDE Review as beta. I don't think that hiding them from
apps.kde.org is a fair solution. On the contrary, I think having beta apps on
apps.kde.org could possibly attract the attention of other developers who'd be
interested in working on a new app and of beta users who'd be interested in
giving the app a try. The possibility to get early feedback is a key value of
FOSS. "Release early. Release often."
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle">https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle</a> clearly documents
what differentiates playground projects from reviewed projects (although this
wiki page needs to be updated to mention the new lifecycle attribute instead
of the old projectpath attribute). I think it's just a matter of making this
information more visible to avoid wrong expectations.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'd rephrase it around "Does it have a stable release?". If not
then we could show it under something like "Beta Applications".</p>
<p>That's a more user-relevant criterium than "Did it pass
kdereview", which is fairly internal and meaningless to most
people.<br>
</p>
<p>Technically kdereview is a precondition for a stable release, so
the end result isn't much different. It would however prevent a
situation where the app is technically "reviewed" but there's
still no installable release. <span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2848589.DJkKcVGEfx@daneel">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">The button on apps.kde.org that says 'Install on Linux' takes me to
Discover and then tells me that the app was not found in any software
repositories.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
Is "passing KDE Review" really connected in any way to "packaged by some
distro"? I guess that's a question only distro packagers can answer.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">It also tells me to report this to my distribution which can lead to
noise on distro bug trackers. It can also lead to noise on the KDE bug
tracker because a user wants to install the application but can't.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
Discover probably shouldn't do this for beta apps. I have no idea how the beta
state could be communicated to Discover. Is there something suitable in
AppStream? I didn't see something obvious; we could probably use tags. To
avoid duplicate information this should somehow be added automatically based
on the lifecyle attribute in repo-metadata. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Discover uses the distributions Appstream pool. If the app is not
packaged in the distro Appstream doesn't know about this. As far
as I can tell there is no good way for Discover to distinguish
between "This app you told me to open doesn't exist" and "it
exists but isn't packaged in this distribution".<span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2848589.DJkKcVGEfx@daneel">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
Now GitLab namespaces
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">I think keeping applications in user namespaces until it has passed KDE
Review would solve both of these problems.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
I think keeping applications in user namespaces until they have passed KDE
Review is an excellent way to hide them from potential co-contributors. Maybe
it's just me because I don't read blogs, follow people on any s.m. and don't
scour GitLab user namespaces for interesting projects, but I have never
stumbled accidentally over an interesting project hidden in a user namespace.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I 100% agree. This proposal would introduce tons of obstacles for
collaboration, and I don't see any benefit for it whatsoever.<span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2848589.DJkKcVGEfx@daneel">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">Regards,
Ingo
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Nico<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>