kdereview

[Matthias Welwarsky]

On Monday 23 May 2005 14:38, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2005 13.36, Matthias Welwarsky wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2005 12:05, Nicolas Goutte wrote:

> > Of course the requirements must not be harder than those of the targeted
> > module, so if we don't require applications in extragear to be fully
> > documented, it makes no sense to require this for kdereview. But it
> > should be clear that applications are not meant to be _developed_ in
> > kdereview. Bugfixed, yes, if the reviewer demands it.
>
> The more I think about it, I don't think the requirements I outlined
> earlier are too demanding for extragear to consider either.  Most of the
> existing apps already fulfill it, some are far better documented than the
> other modules. 

agreed. I'd rather see less applications in extragear or KDE if at the same 
time the quality improves.

> I think I would like to see a minimum set of requirements to enter -review,
> and a minimum set to graduate out of it into permanent home.  It seems to
> me that we could take in an already almost version 1.0 app (or whatever
> number you care to put on it) that's ready for wide release.  

I think a basic documentation should be already there. Not all 
bells-and-whistles, like you said, but basic. WhatsThis should be almost 
complete, too.

Should we also require an application to be unique? Variety is nice, but how 
many text editors do you want in KDE or extragear? Maybe not unique, but the 
application should do something useful, after all, maybe even fill a 
functional gap in KDE.

> Then while 
> it's there, go about writing some documentation, cleaning up style guide
> issues, security audit, finding and fixing i18n snafus (e.g., rtl issues,
> untranslateable strings), tidying up icons and other "housekeeping" issues
> are exactly the kind of thing that a period in -review could be all about. 
> These are also just the kind of things that will turn an app that happens
> to use the kde libraries, into "a KDE application" as much for extragear as
> for any other module.

Security auditing is a tedious thing, but I agree that precautions need to be 
taken especially if the application does networking.

regards,
	matthias

-- 
From the 'Handbook of Corporate Slang':

- to protect prior investment (phrase):
    describes the inability to revert a wrong decision made
    in the past, expresses willingness of throwing 
    good money after bad. (q.v. Fiorina, C.)