[rkward-devel] Some thoughts on switching project hosting

[Prasenjit Kapat]

Hi All,

I haven't kept up with the development in a long long while, so my comments
may seem out-of-turn! (I don't have much idea about the KDE's software
development practices, either.)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Thomas Friedrichsmeier <
thomas.friedrichsmeier at ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Friday 10 October 2014 21:40:42 Mario Fux wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 10. Oktober 2014, 20.38:30 schrieb Thomas Friedrichsmeier:
> > > - More flexibility at the cost of more fragmentation
> >
> > Not that I want to talk bad about github, I know it not that good but I
just
> > want to understand. What's the flexibility of github that KDE doesn't
have?
>
> in short: No manifesto, including the commitment side. Which is not to
say the
> KDE manifesto is asking for anything unreasonable, just to state the fact
that
> it _is_ asking for some things.
>
> > > For RKWard, a bunch of pages would fit into more than
> > > one category (several into all three), and I don't think that would
really
> > > help. I'd like to keep the wiki in one place (on rkward.kde.org, once
that
> > > is available). Would that be considered ok? For a decentral MediaWiki
> > > installation, could KDE.org accounts be used for login?
> >
> > KDE identify access works for all three wikis so it's possible.
>
> What I meant is: Could KDE.org accounts be made to work for a fourth,
RKWard-
> specific wiki? Or would this even be considered mandatory?

This is, technically, a hurdle - in the sense that - a user may not want to
create a 'kde.org' account just to edit the wiki. But, thinking
practically, I think, most edits to the wiki come from within the team.

>
> > About the
> > three wikis and an own for rkward that needs to be thought about. I
think
> > it's possible to have an own wiki but over time people will expect
> > development stuff for rkward on Techbase and end user will of course
search
> > for end user documentation in Userbase.kde.org
>
> Well, not saying this is set in stone for all times to come. But right
now,
> essentially, the wiki is our website. I.e. it also covers news, download
> links, screenshots, etc. And some pages are organized quite orthogonal to
the
> techbase / userbase split (e.g. the pages for installing on the various
> platforms). So, it would be much easier for us to keep things that way,
> initially, and then see where things are going, in the long run, _after_
> migrating.

My 2 cents worth:
If we can not get a rkward.kde.org landing, we can stick to techbase.kde.org
as the the only source of information and userbase can simply link to
techbase. As an aside, in the early days, even our sf wiki page seemed
convoluted to me. Eventually, you get used to it! So, even if the techbase
/ userbase results in an unavoidable fragmentation, we will get used to it.
(But what about the users? I know.. )

Btw, who created this location?
https://userbase.kde.org/RKWard

In that case, we can make userbase as a place for screenshots and news -
that's it. For everything else, head over to techbase.

>
> > > Using downloads.kde.org wold have a rather high wanna-have
> > > rank, as downloads are one area where SF.net tries particularly hard
to
> > > spoil their reputation. The target state would probably be having all
our
> > > services currently hosted on SF migrated to their counterparts on
KDE.org,
> > > and being accepted in extragear.
> >
> > This should then go through the review process. That means sending an
email
> > to kde-core-devel that you plan to move rkward from playground or
outside
> > ;-) to extragear (or kde-edu?) and then people will take a look, see if
> > i18n works, code quality, etc. pp. This should and will be a
constructive
> > process of course.
>
> This point is not entirely clear to me, yet, too. I think we'd be
interested
> in starting moving (git first) rather soonish, after the upcoming release
is
> out. However we wouldn't really be ready for "review" at that stage. Most
> importantly we'd want to take care of plugin i18n, and KF5 porting before
it
> makes sense to get detailed feedback. These are among the very next
high-level
> tasks we plan to work on, but neither is something to manage in a day or
two.
>
> Does that mean we'll be entering "playground", initially? Are "kdereview"
and
> "playground" even tangible entities any more, these days, or just terms
from
> the days of SVN? And what - if anything - will change, once we are ready
to
> enter "extragear"?

Reading the "Application_Lifecycle" page, I have a feeling that we will be
shunting back-and-forth between "playground" and "kdereview" a few times
before we hit the sweet spot for KDE review team's approval.

What about downstream? Do the downstream distributions (stable / unstable /
LTE / enterprise-ready versions) grab applications from playgorund /
kdereview stage? Ideally, as Mario mentioned, it may make sense to be part
of the kde-edu (https://edu.kde.org/applications/all/) group.

Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rkward-devel/attachments/20141013/1695e7c0/attachment.html>