remove khelpcenter from next Plasma release?

[Sebastian Kügler]

On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 17:30:01 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> > Let me cut right to the chase, do you want to maintain it? Does it need to
> > be in Plasma?
> 
> Yes, I can maintain it. In fact many features come from components I
> already  control.
> 
> > You're right that Plasma devs don't seem to want it, I thought my initial
> > email made that pretty clear. We do think that disconnected systems are
> > rather a fringe case, and that our time and effort is better spent on
> > other
> > things.
> 
> Then the question still holds: with a maintainer, does it have a place in 
> Plasma? I'm not talking about an hypothetical time and effort for
> maintaining  this offline use case (which will continue to be 0) but in the
> light of the statement above. In other words, if the question mark in the
> subject is real or rhetorical.
> I'm ready for both possible outcomes.

Ah OK, sorry for misunderstanding it.

I think there are the following options:

1) keeping it in Plasma with maintainer
2) keeping it outside of Plasma with maintainer
3) moving it to unmaintained (that's basically killing it)
4) keeping the status quo (not wanted)

My personal preference would be an optional component (hence Extragear), since 
I think that the vast majority of users has web access, so khelpcenter isn't 
necessary and only adds to our maintainance burden without much gain in those 
cases.

If we can move from 4) to 1) (so status quo but with maintainer), that would 
already be an improvement of course.

The question mark was honest, we haven't made a decision on it, but different 
people do have expressed a preference for not shipping it (as or by default in 
Plasma releases). We may have missed important points, and we don't want to 
just kick things out unilaterally.

Cheers,
-- 
sebas

Sebastian Kügler    |    http://vizZzion.org    |     http://kde.org