New Application Status

[Albert Astals Cid]

El divendres, 6 de desembre del 2024, a les 19:27:32 (Hora estàndard del 
Centre d’Europa), Ben Cooksley va escriure:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:37 AM Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> > El dijous, 5 de desembre del 2024, a les 13:57:26 (Hora estàndard del
> > Centre
> > 
> > d’Europa), Ingo Klöcker va escriure:
> > > On Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2024 10:27:13 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit
> > > Ben
> > > 
> > > Cooksley wrote:
> > > > Trying to coming full circle on this here, but in summary sounds like
> > > > there
> > > > are a couple of things to change going forward:
> > > > 
> > > > * For apps.kde.org, we should flag applications in accordance with
> > 
> > their
> > 
> > > > Lifecycle status in the metadata (ie. unmaintained and those yet to
> > 
> > pass
> > 
> > > > KDE Review should be flagged in some form or another)
> > > 
> > > Yes. For beta apps. I'd say for unmaintained apps there shouldn't be a
> > 
> > page
> > 
> > > on apps.kde.org. Given that there won't be build artifacts for
> > 
> > unmaintained
> > 
> > > apps (at least not for long) there is anyway no AppStream data for
> > 
> > creating
> > 
> > > such a page.
> > 
> > In my opinion once a page exists it needs to exist forever.
> > 
> > Imagine Okular goes unmaintained, I don't want the lots of pages pointing
> > to
> > https://apps.kde.org/okular/ to suddenly point to a 404
> > 
> > I want to see a page that says "This is unmaintained" but still has the
> > old
> > contents.
> 
> Continuing to have pages for unmaintained applications sounds okay, subject
> to appstream metadata being available (not a given as we source them from
> CI artifacts right now).
> 
> We probably wouldn't want to list unmaintained applications on say the
> front page of apps.kde.org or the category lists though?

Clearly not on the front page, probably not on category lists though (Maybe 
having their own "unmaintained category" in case people want to adopt them?)

Cheers,
  Albert

> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> >   Albert
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben
> 
> > > > * We should institute tighter controls regarding releases of
> > 
> > applications
> > 
> > > > and ensuring projects pass KDE Review first
> > > 
> > > Make that "stable releases". For good reasons our lifecycle policy
> > > explicitly allows unstable releases for Playground projects (but not for
> > > incubated projects).
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Ingo