lypanov at kde.org
Thu Sep 19 08:20:54 BST 2002
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 02:11:28AM +0200, Ingo Kl?cker wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Thursday 19 September 2002 01:59, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 September 2002 21:34, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > > Good compromise. Yet, this doesn't solve the problem at all. We
> > > have two people fighting for maintainership. One of them is
> > > accepted by the vast majority of developers,
> > I only want to mention that I already heard complaints from some
> > other KDE developers (which I don't want to name now) some time ago
> > about the way kmail is being developed currently, e.g. that it is
> > quite hard to get patches in as "non-core kmail dev".
> Maybe those KDE developers should speak for themselves and should have
> complained on kmail at kde.org instead of talking behind our backs. If we
> don't know about such problems we are obviously not able to do
> something about that.
It's quite "obvious" to me also that kmail's development strategy is
not working given kde 3.0 shipped with a severe imap bug. I therefore
very much doubt that this conservatism is really worth it.
Has anyone considering writing interface test suites for the lower-level
layers in kmail?, imo regression testing should just be a standard
for a project were the users rely so much on stability. Conservatism
in code writing doesn't help stability, it hinders it in general as
new (or old) eyes don't get to see old reused code and the overall
understanding of the codebase is heavily reduced.
More information about the kde-core-devel