[kde-guidelines] CVS

[Frans Englich]

On Friday 29 October 2004 21:44, you wrote:
> On Friday 29 October 2004 04.09, Frans Englich wrote:
<SNIP>

> It *is* the
> way KDE does things, like it or not, and it seems odd to me that you would
> fight so hard to deviate from standard KDE procedure on a project dedicated
> to documenting and augmenting exactly that: standard KDE procedures.  And
> futhermore, in files that you won't be editing (everyone *got* that right?
> this discussion is bikeshedding technical details that in reality don't
> effect anyone but Ellen and Jan, and so they're the people who  I am
> soliciting opinions from when it comes to them.)
>
> The discussion I want to be having now, is, is everyone happy with the
> directory structure and the URL's that the directory structure will
> naturally create, and if not, why not.
>
> As for non-negotiable, sometimes things just are that way.  KDE is written
> in C++, and uses Qt as a toolkit.  If you want to write KDE apps in another
> language, you need bindings to the toolkit.  The default language is US
> English, even if it's not your default language.  Docs are written in
> DocBook, the default icon set is SVG, every app should have a Help Menu..
> there's a lot of non-negotiable things in KDE.

Ok, this is new stuff, because the key reason why we're using system entities 
instead of XIncludes are now about KDE Standard Procedures, which I so 
rigorously fights, to use your word.

You also motivate the choice by that the only one to listen to is Ellen and 
Jan, because they are the only one who are to edit(modify) the files. First 
of all, that's not true -- everyone will edit, write, and validate, but they 
are the only one to approve it. 

Second, this has nothing about editing to do, since those lines the issue 
affects will never be touched. And the least by Ellen & Jan, since it's 
technical mumbo jumbo which touches one file(the top file) which they will 
never poke anyway. To illustrate; using XIncludes is a commit done once, and 
after that it doesn't bother anyone, and it is lines which no one will touch.

Doing the modifications only concerns you and me(since we'll do the changes), 
but the advantages of using XIncludes is available to everyone, if they 
decide to take advantage of it(since it's optional).


But that about KDE Standard Procedures is much more interesting(I don't think 
you've used that argument before). It surely sounds dramatic, but how 
intrusive is that what I suggest? It touches one, isolated file. That you 
compare it to changing KDE from C++, or the default language from English, 
surely makes it sound like a large scale thing. If I were in Ellen's 
position, I would then of course follow whatever choice that is KDE Standard 
Procedures(because OMG, who wants to diverge from that?).

You made it sound big, but there's no concrete arguments to what it actually 
means. For example, let's say we Violated KDE Standard Procedures by using 
XIncludes -- but what would it in practical terms result in? In what way is 
it negative other than sounding scary? 

Convince me, by giving an example(anecdote) of how XIncludes would negatively 
affect Ellen, Jan, or anyone else who will write guidelines.

You wonder why I "fight" this topic, but I can just as well flip the question: 
Why do you still object?

That I cannot use XIncludes doesn't bother me, but that you are wrong and 
still opposes do(or that I still haven't understood).


Cheers,

		Frans