Thoughts on when to put/remove applications to/from CVS

[Waldo Bastian]

On Thursday 19 December 2002 01:09, Lauri Watts wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 18 December 2002 12:43, Matthias Welwarsky wrote:
> > 1) The author must consent to the inclusion
> > 2) KDE as a platform must benefit from the inclusion.
> > 3) The application must be "worth" a translation, i.e. it must be
> > technically possible to translate it. This includes documentation.
> > 4) It should "fit nicely" into KDE, meaning look&feel, use of KDE core
> > techniques (ioslaves, parts etc) where applicable.
> > 5) It must be maintained and development progress and process must be
> > visible, i.e. it should be actively developed using the KDE CVS.
> > 6) there must be a team of developers working actively on the
> > application. There need not be a dedicated maintainer.
> > 7) developers must be willing to accept the dictate of the KDE release
> > cycle
>
> Ones I'd like to consider adding:
>
> 1: Passes a security check of the source, up to the standards that the rest
> of KDE has been/will be very soon.
>
> 2: Is, within reason, portable.  That is to say, doesn't have large parts
> of it's functionality #ifdef'ed out to avoid having to deal with non-Linux
> platforms, and doesn't use linux specific or gcc specific or glibc specific
> "isms", or at least is willing to let us (non-majority) users help fix
> them.
>
> 3: The author understands that by putting their application in CVS, other
> people will commit directly to it, especially but not limited to Icons,
> Styleguide fixes to gui items (i.e., spelling errors and UI layout),
> documentation, the build system and i18n fixes.

Very good points indeed.

Cheers,
Waldo
-- 
bastian@kde.org -=|[ SuSE, The Linux Desktop Experts ]|=- bastian@suse.com