remove khelpcenter from next Plasma release?

[Luigi Toscano]

Luigi Toscano ha scritto:
> On Wednesday 09 of March 2016 16:50:39 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 17:30:01 Luigi Toscano wrote:
>>>> Let me cut right to the chase, do you want to maintain it? Does it need
>>>> to
>>>> be in Plasma?
>>>
>>> Yes, I can maintain it. In fact many features come from components I
>>> already  control.
>>>
>>>> You're right that Plasma devs don't seem to want it, I thought my
>>>> initial
>>>> email made that pretty clear. We do think that disconnected systems are
>>>> rather a fringe case, and that our time and effort is better spent on
>>>> other
>>>> things.
>>>
>>> Then the question still holds: with a maintainer, does it have a place in
>>> Plasma? I'm not talking about an hypothetical time and effort for
>>> maintaining  this offline use case (which will continue to be 0) but in
>>> the
>>> light of the statement above. In other words, if the question mark in the
>>> subject is real or rhetorical.
>>> I'm ready for both possible outcomes.
>>
>> Ah OK, sorry for misunderstanding it.
>>
>> I think there are the following options:
>>
>> 1) keeping it in Plasma with maintainer
>> 2) keeping it outside of Plasma with maintainer
>> 3) moving it to unmaintained (that's basically killing it)
>> 4) keeping the status quo (not wanted)
>>
>> My personal preference would be an optional component (hence Extragear),
>> since I think that the vast majority of users has web access, so
>> khelpcenter isn't necessary and only adds to our maintainance burden
>> without much gain in those cases.
> 
> My offer stands and we can rule out 4) and 3).
> Note that 2) could also mean a move to Applications (from your point of view 
> it does not matter too much).
> The case 1) shouldn't add maintenance anyway as the maintainer is identified.
> 
>>
>> If we can move from 4) to 1) (so status quo but with maintainer), that would
>> already be an improvement of course.
>>
>> The question mark was honest, we haven't made a decision on it, but
>> different people do have expressed a preference for not shipping it (as or
>> by default in Plasma releases). We may have missed important points, and we
>> don't want to just kick things out unilaterally.
> 
> I think we can leave some time for other people to comment. The shortest 
> deadline of all possibilities is the one for moving into Applications, and 
> there are still 8 days before the dependency freeze and two weeks before the 
> branch.

Any other comment from anyone else?

Ciao
-- 
Luigi