[kde-guidelines] CVS

[Lauri Watts]

On Friday 29 October 2004 04.09, Frans Englich wrote:

> So.. I'm a little bit confused here. I see some different combinations: 1)
> Lauri slept on the meeting; 2) Aaron was drunk when he wrote that. Or
> perhaps vice versa? Or both options for both of you? :)))

Possibly both or vice versa :)

In fact, I didn't understand the reasoning then either, I just haven't 
remembered to raise the question.  Thomas explanation seems to explain it 
sufficiently, and I agree that editing previous versions once a new version 
is finalised is unlikely to happen, so we could simply turn off 
auto-generation of those older versions (if there is any auto-generation 
going on), move the last generated version to a subdirectory named for the 
version and provide links to them.

> > This one is non-negotiable and yes
> >
> > we took your input
>
> So, for how long will it be we vs Frans? Or how should I interpret it? I
> disagree with you, you disagree with me, but for whatever reason you have
> the right to overrule me? In what other cases doesn't developers wait for
> consensus before pulling decisions?

Relax,  there was consensus.  Present for the discussion were myself, Thomas, 
Ellen, and Jan - and Ellen and Jan are the designated maintainers who will be 
needing to manage the source files.  

It wasn't "we vs Frans", it was "all in one file vs any kind of multi file 
sources".  The maintainers are the ones who will be working in the sources, 
so until and unless they find it unmanageable, the point is moot.   At that 
point, unless there is a really compelling reason to change from standard KDE 
procedures, then we won't.  It's non negotiable because it's completely and 
utterly not relevant to the issue to be discussed.

> (the topic in question is a non-issue, but if future contributors which are
> not hard-skinned like me, are to hear that, they probably won't stay long.
> And I neither like it.)

I'm rarely that direct.  I was this time, because I know you are hard skinned, 
and to cut off this exact discussion we're having.  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.

Regards,
-- 
Lauri Watts
KDE Documentation: http://docs.kde.org
KDE on FreeBSD: http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-guidelines/attachments/20041029/0e696503/attachment.pgp