Office/ and Utilities/ menu reorganization
cullmann at babylon2k.de
Tue Aug 9 18:02:08 BST 2005
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 18:50, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > Tell me again, why would this not happen anymore if kbattleship was in
> > > extragear instead of a monolithic games module?
> > Tell me how that should happen?
> You file a bugreport. Or someone with a commit bit in the KDE repo fixes the
> bug straight away. The next release of the application will contain the fix.
> In short, no difference as to what happens with applications in the released
> kde modules right now.
The fix is in, yes, but no release with this fix migh ever happen.
> As long as the application resides in a module like extragear in the kde repo,
> with a common build infrastructure, they are also easily tinderboxable.
> > You don't get the point
> > that there are many little apps which are useful, but which have no that
> > big team like popular apps like k3b or amarok.
> And what exactly is the point there?
The point is: many small apps have no real maintainer which will make releases, atm they get fixed
by other people and released with kde, even if other people keep in fixing, nobody will do the release.
(Just look again at famous kfloppy, kruler, ..., yes, all little apps perhaps not even each 1 of 100 user needs,
but atm they stay alive and have fixes, but I doubt you will find release coordinators for such small apps, with the coupled
extragear like module they would stay alive, until nobody fixes them, then they could be dropped)
> I fail to see the advantage of putting applications onto the same release
> schedule as KDE. We've already established that it's apparently not an
> advantage for the translators and documentation writers, why would it be for
> the developers? On the contrary, most application bugs are utterly unrelated
> to anything that's going on in kdelibs or similar - isn't it rather a good
> thing that application maintainers can put out bugfix or feature releases
> when there's some actual bugfixes or new features in the code instead of just
> putting out snapshots (and releasing such a huge collection of software as
> KDE is now on one single release schedule *does* have snapshot-like quality
> if we're unlucky, as KDE 3.4.2 has nicely demonstrated so far)?
It might be good for some apps, and they have extragear, but why force all apps to do releases on
their own? I mean, really, what's the sense? Why won't a additional extragear which is coupled to releases
not fix the problem packagers have with the big kde* modules?
It won't be more work for i18n and docs, it won't be more work for the app maintainers, it will make
life more easy for the packagers like you wanted it, where is the problem with that?
Applications which need own release cycles can move over to extragear, if they want, others would stay in this
coupled extragear, all fine.
KDE Developer, kde.org Maintainance Team
http://www.babylon2k.de, cullmann at kde.org
More information about the kde-core-devel