> On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:16, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:44:13 AM CET Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >>>> On Feb 1, 2016, at 15:31, Cornelius Schumacher <schumac...@kde.org> wrote: >>>> On Monday 01 February 2016 13:04:37 Sebastian Kügler wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not against automated testing at all, I just think it doesn't work at >>>> the highest level and bears pitfalls of distros gaming the system, or >>>> people actually care more about the number of points they get than the >>>> actual user experience. >>> >>> I think we have to readjust the perspective here a bit. I really >>> appreciate >>> Thomas' initiative because there definitely could be better collaboration >>> between distributions and KDE. We have the common goal to get our software >>> to users in the best possible shape. We shouldn't see that as a gaming, >>> blaming, or judging, but we should see this as an opportunity to work >>> together in a better way. How this is then expressed to the public is a >>> second thought, and should be decided together with the distributions. >>> >>> So defining and discussing criteria which make up a good experience, >>> listing and communicating requirements, talking to each other about what >>> is missing, what needs to be fixed, and where it should be fixed without >>> playing upstream- downstream-ping-pong, sharing and possibly aligning >>> roadmaps, all these things and more could happen through the distribution >>> outreach program. This would be really wonderful. >>> >>> In essence I think this is about better communication between KDE and >>> distributions, so that we can productively work on what needs to be fixed, >>> avoid misunderstandings, and keep a common momentum. >> >> Here is an idea that shouldn't be novel but I have yet to see mentioned. >> >> If you see a distro doesn't package KDE software correctly, doesn't >> integrate with the system, doesn't provide a good user experience for >> whatever reason... file a bug on the distro's bug tracker. Instead of >> putting the distro on a user-facing "they don't do things good enough" >> list. > > You haven't seen this one proposed, because it just doesn't work. Do you > really think nobody reports bugs about incorrectly packaged stuff? Or that we > don't talk to the distros? Do you know how often we get answers like "well I > would like to, but we have $POLICY". I could give you examples like outdated > Qt in Kubuntu, broken cursors on Fedora, missing Wayland in openSUSE Leap, no > way to suspend in Devuan, etc. etc. - I could name you a $POLICY issue for > each distro. > > Sorry once you have done this for years, you realize this approach doesn't > work. Personally I'm pretty fed up with the state our software is in, in > various distributions. I'm sick of having to take the blame for it. This > approach hasn't worked, we need to look for new ways.
So we're going to shame them into complying by leaving them out of a list? They'll pay attention to our wiki more than to their policies? Several people in this thread mentioned distro policies as a reason why this won't work, in fact. -- Nicolás _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list kde-community@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
