smallish project needed

[Tomaz Canabrava]

juk should be a lightweigth music player, while amarok should be an
all-featured media player. I say should because juk is in a stage
where it's not lightweigth, for the code there needs much love. that
said, juk is part of KDE software, while Amarok does not follow the
KDE rules to be part of the official package. ( same release dates for
instance )

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Mark <markg85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Lydia Pintscher
> <lydia.pintscher at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 03:15, Michael Pyne <mpyne at kde.org> wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 08, 2011 18:44:40 Tomaz Canabrava wrote:
>>>> Juk is an easy target, and in need of love.
>>>
>>> Honestly I was going to recommend the same thing.
>>>
>>> I don't agree that it's (all) easy (although there is certainly a lot of "low-
>>> hanging fruit"), but it does have the advantage that I'm at least available by
>>> email to help guide/mentor.
>>>
>>> In addition I will be completing school very soon, which hopefully should add
>>> some time per day (although that may be offset by the new job I will be
>>> rotating to soon which will probably involve a longer commute).
>>>
>>> Either way, JuK could use some love, there's still someone mostly-active who
>>> can show interested parties around the codebase and I should have piped in on
>>> one of these requests awhile ago (but I've always assumed someone else has
>>> need the help more ;( )
>>
>> Thanks guys. I've suggested him to take a look at JuK.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>>
>> --
>> Lydia Pintscher
>> KDE Community Working Group member
>> http://kde.org - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
>>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering, but why is there Amorok and JuK? Surely Amarok can do
> everything JuK can right?
> JuK even looks "a bit" like Amarok.
> No pun intended!
>
> Thanx,
> Mark
>