Brad Hards bradh at frogmouth.net
Sun May 22 11:27:28 BST 2005

On Sun, 22 May 2005 08:45 am, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Currently in kdereview we have knetworkconf, ksynaptics and viki. IIRC they
> have been there for almost 2 months and IMHO this is breaking the purpose
> of kdereview, that is giving some review to programs. So that programs
> should be either approved to be "stable and kde compilant" and decide with
> the author if they have to go to any kde module or to some extragear or
> either push them back to the playground.
> What do you think? Should we put a hard maximum time, for example 2 weeks,
> for projects to stay in kdereview?
I think that we should perform review according to some guidelines (to be 
defined), and that there should be a defined limit. However two weeks is much 
too short. The timeframe should be a substantial fraction of a release cycle 
- perhaps 3 months.  So authors  move their code into kdereview, and request 
inclusion into the 3.5 release. Unless some objection is raised, then it goes 

During that cycle, really aggressive distros should include it as an 
experimental release package.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050522/4ea1b02b/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list