KPeople part of KDE Frameworks

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 20:49:45, Martin Klapetek va escriure:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> > El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 01:47:00, Martin Klapetek va 
escriure:
> > > I would just like to point out that the review period of KPeople
> > > is over and all the associated moves are in order, are they not?
> > > What exactly is "enormously rushed" when the review period
> > > is over and moves are rightfully requested? Perhaps that should
> > > have been said in either of the "please review this proposal" emails
> > > before, not after.
> > > 
> > > KDE Telepathy also already has a dependency on KPeople
> > > since ever, so there's no new dependency added. It's just being
> > > moved from kdereview to frameworks. Is that a dependency
> > > freeze violation? I read "it is not allowed to add new dependencies"
> > > in the release schedule page. That is not what is happening.
> > > 
> > > The only rush is to get KPeople tarball released a bit sooner so
> > > that it can be there for KDE Applications Beta 1. That is all.
> > > And that tarball could just as well be made from kdereview.
> > 
> > We have some rules, one of them is that when we release a tarball, it must
> > be
> > able to be compiled against other released tarballs. I hope that's not
> > hard to
> > agree on.
> > 
> > So we need the KPeople tarball before KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is
> > out.
> > 
> > Now KPeople wants to be a framework and thus is not on the same relase
> > schedule as KDE Applications 15.04.
> > 
> > So to achieve the "tarballs have to compile against released tarballs"
> > KPeople
> > should have been part of the past release, not of Frameworks release that
> > is
> > after KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is released.
> > 
> > Thus KPeople was late and we had to rush it a bit.
> 
> Yes, but the only thing "rushed" is the release of KPeople tarball about 8
> days sooner.
> Everything else is pretty much in order, so there's definitely not an
> "enormous rush"
> to things and not at all a freeze violation.
> 
> > > (and yes I'm a bit annoyed by all this crap I'm getting for this
> > > only now and not a month before when was the right time)
> > 
> > I'm sorry you're getting annoyed by people trying to make sure we
> > collectively
> > follow the few rules we have given ourselves.
> 
> No, I'm annoyed by the fact that all I hear is "this is rush rush rush rush
> mess mess mess"
> and only _after_ all the moves have had happened. That's why there is the
> review period.
> And I started it since beginning of February. Nobody in the review periods
> asked the
> right questions, nobody really objected or disagreed to anything and
> suddenly it's all rush
> and mess while it's just one single tarball in question and already with a
> solution.
> 
> Makes me think that maybe the review process does not work that well...

Correct, the review process doesn't work well at all, and hasn't been for a 
long time, there's not enough people with enough different skills reviewing 
the apps/libs.

Albert

> 
> If you don't agree with the rules you're more than welcome to propose
> 
> > improvements or modifications, maybe that way we will get more people
> > caring
> > and following them.
> 
> I never said anything about not agreeing with the rules (and it's really
> not about the rules).
> 
> Cheers