Marc Deop i Argemí wrote: > To make it clear about this particular package: > > - we have _forgotten_ indeed to notify the maintainers on occasions. > - why did we forget? because the KDE collection is close to 400 packages > and despite our automation, we are humans and this kind of thing happens.
This is OK. We all make mistakes. I just wanted to explain why I was slightly upset in that update's comments. But I worked to rectify the situation pretty quickly, and the update went out, without breaking Blogilo, soon afterwards. I do not think "bullying" (as Alessandro Astone wrote) is a fair term to describe my intervention in that update. > - to make it clear that we *bother* (using your own words), I even > submitted tickets upstream to help out on the situation: > https://invent.kde.org/pim/pimcommon/-/issues/2 Noted. > - worth mentioning that despite the kdepim libraries being released as > packages, they are *NOT* intended to be consumed externally but as a whole > KDE PIM ecosystem > - this approach worked for blogilo in the past because it was part ot the > KDE PIM ecosystem > - worth mentioning that Blogilo has been unmaintained for many years It is also worth mentioning that most kdepim updates since Blogilo has become unmaintained have not caused major issues for Blogilo. 1 or 2 recent ones were troublesome because some API cleanups in preparation for kdepim 6 were also done in the KF5-based branch (an upstream decision I would question, though I understand their approach of just porting the (maintained) applications together with the libraries rather than maintaining strict backwards compatibility in the libraries). > I personally used blogilo in the past and loved the app myself. > > However, sometimes we need to be pragmatic in life. I will quote one of > the main developers of the KDE PIM: > > " I don't understand why you still continue to release a dead apps from > long time..." Because it is still useful (though there is at least one annoying composer bug where it likes to blank the composer content at times, which I should try to track down and fix – that bug had been introduced before Blogilo had become officially unmaintained, I am not sure when exactly). > Link to the *unmaintained* blogilo (not _legacy_): https://invent.kde.org/ > unmaintained/blogilo I do not see a hard distinction between "legacy" and "unmaintained". Unmaintained applications are by definition legacy, and legacy applications are often either unmaintained or de-facto-unmaintained/semi-unmaintained (like X.Org X11). Some legacy applications are maintained, but considered legacy for other reasons (such as depending on unmaintained libraries, or implementing an obsolete technology, etc.), but that is not the typical case. Kevin Kofler -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
