Applications Lifecycle Policy

[Luigi Toscano]

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/Application_Lifecycle/Draft
>>
> 
> Looks good to me for what it currently is.
> 
> In general I think:
> * it should be ok to release from playground for years, or even
> potentially forever.

Even stable releases? I disagree.

> * going to extragear/applications should be an extra quality badge where
> you sign up for certain requirements (which is why I think it should be
> possible to release from extragear forever. Perhaps some project is just
> not interested in translations for instance...)

I totally disagree. If an application is not interested in the translations
(or other "details" which should be level 0) and the maintainership does not
even agree to outsource the work for the maintainance of the translations, I
would question whether the application is fit for the KDE community at all.


> * Abolishing the extragear/applications differentiation at this level
> would make more sense to me (extragear does have a second class feel to
> it), instead applications should just declare that they are part of the
> applications release. This would indeed also ease transitioning between
> releases and dealing with the versioning should be up to the maintainers
> (of course versions that go down are not at all something that should be
> accepted ever anywhere).


So basically change

kdereview
-> KDE Applications
-> KDE Extragear
-> KDE Frameworks
-> KDE Plasma
(as mentioned by Jonathan, we are missing the last two in the graph)

with something like

kdereview -> reviewed (Frameworks, KDE Plasma, "KDE Applications", independent
release schedule).

That sound fine, with one caveat: without having the 4 entities in separate
nodes of the graph we can't describe the transition between modules. You wrote
that this would "ease transitioning", but I think that we may want to capture
for example the transition from "any" to Frameworks, which has specific rules.
And so on.

-- 
Luigi