kdereview exemption for PolicyKit-KDE

Aaron J. Seigo aseigo at kde.org
Mon Nov 17 10:14:26 GMT 2008

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

> So PolicyKit-KDE is not a framework but developers working with the lastest
> release would need it?

it's a simple matter of connect-the-dots:

* if there is no KDE GUI for PolicyKit, will people be more or less encouraged 
to use it where appropriate from their apps?

* will we go out and encourage people to use PolicyKit in their apps in our 
blogs and what not until there is a KDE GUI so we don't appear to be second 
class citizens there?

it's not a matter of "need" as much as "in all likliehood, far fewer KDE devs 
will work with it until there is a KDE GUI for it."

> > 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.

that's a great way to avoid the issue. i'm not sure avoidance is what we 
should be aiming in for in this case. in fact, i'm rather convinced it isn't.

> > * 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.

where to begin..

* there is a reason we do collective releases of certain feature sets.

* they can do independent releases if they want, just as any other app can, 
regardless of where they are.

* which brings us to the real issue of relying on downstream to integrate the 
pieces that obviously belong together. it's a responsibility we should take 
more seriously that we do or have.

i'd also note that our downstreams haven't seen fit to write this code. along 
come a couple of people who decide to take it on. we ought to realize that 
this particular area is an important one and worth incubating with care. build 
excitement and commitment in these people, don't stonewall them until we end 
up with yet another bit of unmaintained cruft in extragear. and don't get me 
wrong, extragear is great, but only when used to its strengths rather than as 
a dumping ground. (a mistake i've made in the past myself.)

Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20081117/c68d7266/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list