[kde-community] Proposal One: KDE (Core) Apps and Suites

[Myriam Schweingruber]

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 03 May 2014 09:58:14 Myriam Schweingruber wrote:
>> Hi Jos,
>>
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jos Poortvliet <jospoortvliet at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > So, I thought to get rid of the X month schedule that apps have to fit
>> > into + separate releases for apps that don't want it. Especially now we
>> > have Frameworks AND applications AND Plasma AND Calligra AND amarok, AND
>> > bugfix releases, the current process results in multiple releases per
>> > month and a lot of work and boilerplate to be copied over (esp for
>> > bugfixes).
>> Could you just please leave Amarok out of your examples? It makes no
>> sense as Amarok was never released with KDE, and it is highly unlikely
>> it ever will, and you are only adding confusion. So please, use
>> examples that make sense, e.g the software projects that were/are part
>> of the KDE SC release.
>
> Just curious - why would Amarok never be released by the KDE release team?
>
> Note that I propose to dump the SC and all that - I just propose that the
> release team takes care of all releases, syncing them monthly, just to
> simplify the work done for releasing. There is no connection other than that.
>
>> Just my 2 cts.
>
> Well, my idea might make no sense anyway, I'm just looking for a way to
> express that Kpotatoguy is no more related to Kanagram than Amarok is.
> Kanagram and Kpotatoguy benefit from the release team doing the release work,
> but Amarok not - why not level the playing field, simplify things?

Very simple: we try to get our releases out for the users and try to
get into major distributions (not rolling ones), not for our own
schedule's sake. And fixed release cycles are one thing, but the
availability of the devs to push and polish their work is another one.
Also: doing our own release in Amarok might look like more work, but
we reach a greater audience than if we would stick into a KDE releases
x.y.z and get a one liner mention in an endless list nobody ever reads
anyway. When did anybody here read the full release text of the KDE SC
releases, but those who wrote them? The longer it gets, the less
likely anybody would read it, don't forget the tl::dr attitude of most
people

I fear we are again doing a lot of blabla but nobody thinks about the
users perspective as usual. I understand if kdelibs devs or Solid or
whatever underlying structure they work on don't think of users as
their first target, but that is certainly not so for applications like
Amarok. So if everybody would take a step back and think of to whom
and where and how we want to achieve a better distribution, then
strict release schedules, regardless of the actual length, are not
really helpful, they are a constraint to people who work in their free
time and we try to apply company rules to them. That just doesn't
work. Alienating the non-rolling distributions by our new schedules
doesn't help either, btw.

Also: changing names all the time and making releases for "KDE sc and
x and y and z and plasma and don't call it KDE" are just not working,
did ever anybody of you got aware that the whole rebranding to "KDE is
not what we release, it's a community" is a complete and utter
failure? I stopped long ago correcting people who call what they get
on their desktop "KDE" and not "KDE SC with plasma desktop" or
whatever is the "official" name we should use. It just doesn't work.
Period.

So let's get the perspective right: people want KDE, and there are
already tons of posts out there in the web where people don't call it
Frameworks5 but KDE5, and not even KDE devs commenting on those posts
correct that anymore. Make a search and you will get aware of the
reality, stop pretending it didn't happen.

I think we talk about how we would like things to be instead of facing
realities and work with facts.


Regards, Myriam
-- 
Proud member of the Amarok and KDE Community
Protect your freedom and join the Fellowship of FSFE:
http://www.fsfe.org
Please don't send me proprietary file formats,
use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300)