kdereview exemption for PolicyKit-KDE

[Kevin Krammer]

On Monday 17 November 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

[...]


> What PolicyKit-kde isn't:
>
> * A framework. It's two apps that work with the PolicyKit framework.
> PolicyKit is the framework, PolicyKit-kde is sort of the equivalent of
> pinentry-qt for gnupg.

[...]

> Why PolicyKit-kde should be in 4.2:

[...]

> * So KDE appication devs (who overwhelmingly work against the last released
> version) can start using PolicyKit in their apps sooner rather than later

[...]

So PolicyKit-KDE is not a framework but developers working with the lastest 
release would need it?
So far I though that applications where not directly interacting with the GUI 
portions of PolicyKit

> Why PolicyKit-kde should not be in 4.2:
>
> * It missed the deadline for review

There is still plenty of time to get it reviewed properly and release 
according to its own schedule, just not KDE's main one.

> * It probably hasn't had the testing it needs. We have the next two months
> to do that with it in kdebase, however, should it go there.
>
> * It's not 100% feature complete. I see a couple TODOs in the code, but
> nothing that looks critical to use. So this is a very week point in the
> "should not" column

Especially considering this point I'd say that having it on its own schedule 
has additional benefits.
Like allowing new releases in the time between 4.2 and 4.3, not requiring 
backporting by distributions which want those improvements, etc.

Cheers,
Kevin

-- 
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20081117/bb8a6779/attachment.sig>