Policy for Dependencies

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Wednesday 14 October 2015 21:20:33 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> Therefore my goal for frameworks is to make them actually as easy usable
> for people in that situation. We advertise that a lot everywhere but at the
> moment that is just not true beside for really simple stuff like "karchive".

Just to put some historical perspective into this particular point. It *is* 
true, but for tier 1 and tier 2 frameworks only. That's why the dependency 
rules of the tier system were designed the way they are.

So if you are "people in that situation" as described by Christoph in his 
email: stay away from anything which is above tier 2 or make it an optional 
dependency. You still have more than 30 frameworks to pick from for the other 
ones YMMV, you should be warned headaches might or might not be ahead with 
tier 3.

If you are someone working on a given framework and you are just content of 
having it in KF5's tier 3, but did no refactoring or API work to get it to 
tier 2 or tier 1: you're missing the point of KF5's tier and type 
organization. You are also prematurely shrinking its potential user base and 
that should bother you, really.

If you remember the talk I gave back in the days about KF5, I mentioned that 
the tier and type matrix is also a *maturity* system. It is our responsibility 
to push the frameworks down the stack as much as possible. Since then, I see 
lots of frameworks appearing, I don't see many of them lowering their tier...

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151014/952a92d8/attachment.sig>