Moving kdcop

[Brad Hards]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:09 am, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Monday 02 February 2004 23:41, Brad Hards wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 09:21 am, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > I want kdcop in kdesdk to reduce KDE forking.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. Why does moving a bit of code from one KDE
> > module to another prevent forking (as in
> > http://people.kldp.org/~eunjea/jargon/?idx=forked)?
>
> Yes, that's my definition(good idea to check this).
Then can you please explain how moving it from one module to another can 
prevent two development activities?

> > If you mean you are trying to influence distributions:
>
> I'm not, I'm trying to make KDE be more like distributors want it. Feel
> free to quote where I indicated that.
>
> > 1. That is outside KDE's charter, see:
> > http://www.kde.org/download/packagepolicy.php
Changing CVS to work with packagers is still a secondary issue, and you 
haven't provided any evidence that any packagers actually want this (or care 
enough to rework their stuff).

> > 2. You are creating work for them and us, for little or no gain.
>
> (and that's why this is irrelevant, AFAICT)
You need to explain what "this" means (the work? the move? the gain?) since 
your comment is ambiguous.

> > 3. It probably won't work anyway - if they had a kdcop package in
> > previous releases, they'll likely want to have one in this release too.
>
> Assuming it's a conscious decision - that is, if they know what every
> cryptic dir in our packages means, and manages to keep up to date with what
> goes on in KDE development.
The major distro packagers know what they are packaging. Everyone else just 
picks a RPM spec or Debian equivalent file, and changes the name :-)

> Well, there's many reasons to why it's a Good Thing to have the vanilla
> version as users wants it. And forking is Bad.
You haven't provided any evidence or analysis showing that the way we 
currently have it is not the way the user wants it - how could the current 
location be a problem, given that most users don't know how CVS is organised 
in any case?
Any the concept of reducing code forking by relocating from one module to 
another still doesn't make any sense.

Basically there is no upside for anyone in such a move.

Brad
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAH4VKGwwszQ/PZzgRAg7FAKCBwvKk6R8E1lqVsWHXZos0zR3LHACfb/nP
kIHIu2H2vt05AikRIhro3xk=
=kxnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----