Applications Lifecycle Policy

[Ben Cooksley]

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Christian Mollekopf
<chrigi_1 at 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?
>>
>> 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.

Sorry, but I disagree there. Releasing from Playground is allowed
merely to allow developers to get feedback from early adopters (who
understand the software may possess kittens, open blackholes and start
a zombie uprising)
Once an application is ready (or is being used) for production
purposes by users (and it's own developers count as users) then it
should be headed to Extragear/Applications.

We're doing ourselves a disservice by not reviewing each others code
for issues, which is something KDE Review helps facilitate.

> * 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...)

Pretty sure that not allowing translations is a violation of various
commitments which are expected of KDE software as it impedes
accessibility and usability by portions of our user base.

> * 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).
>
> Cheers,
> Christian

Regards,
Ben