On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Martin Flöser wrote: > I'm now going to propose a rather radical change to the process: > > 1. Remove extragear > 2. Remove playground > 3. Remove the 2 week Review process > > Let me explain the reasoning. > > Extragear: to me extragear is a relict from the time of the big one KDE svn > trunk repository. There was "KDE" and everything else, aka. extragear. When I > started to compile KDE software it looked to me like something created from > the needs of SVN. A technical thing. Now we have git and we have split up all > those parts which used to be KDE, except for extragear. Where is the > difference between Krita (to my knowledge not part of extragear),
It isn't -- for some reasons I don't exactly understand, it's still part of calligra in some kind of hierarchy, though not in the repo. > Amarok (to > my knowledge part of extragear) and Dolphin (to my knowledge part of KDE > Applications)? Honestly I don't see it. > > Let's just remove it and separate into applications released as part of a > larger bundle for release simplification and applications having their own > release cycle. Yeah. > > To me the review process always felt weird and also like a relict from other > times. I contributed to overall KDE something like 100 k lines of new code - > none of them went through review. Would KWin pass review today? Just for the > fun I opened up Krazy and see 444 open issues. Objectively speaking KWin is > known as one of the products with highest quality in the KDE area and one of > the window managers with highest quality and the Wayland compositor with > largest test coverage. On the other hand it would fail our rules for review > (granted Krazy reports so many false positives in the case of KWin, that I > didn't check for years). Same here. Nearly 10k commits later, I'm not sure Krita would get through review, let alone that that there would be someone capable of reviewing it... > KWayland entered frameworks without review. How come? Well it moved from > Plasma to frameworks, so no review needed. How did it enter Plasma? Well it > was split out of KWin. Back then it was a few files providing a very minimal > library for Wayland clients. If we had started in Playground we would have had > to go through review - today it's a code base of 50 k (according to cloc). > Similar if we would have started a new Wayland compositor from scratch it > would have had to go through review, but by extending KWin that was never > needed. Good point. <...> > Similar we see now for Kube. If it would have started as a "KMail 3" no review > would be needed, but as Kube it needs to go through review. That's arbitrary. > If I would start a new project I would think that this process is a joke. The > quality just doesn't get measured any more after review. Excellent point. <...> > * is the project a one person show? Poor Gimp... Poor mitchfoo. > So instead of a one time review I would propose a continuous review of the > projects and make it available in an easy accessible way so that users can > also see the objective quality of the application. And yes that would mean > that many long standing applications would have a way lower quality than the > new kids on the block. > > For KDE Applications, Plasma and Frameworks I expect to have additional rules > for integration. Frameworks already has them, Plasma kind of has them, but I > think they are not codified and KDE Applications could e.g. start with the > current review process. > > So to sum it up: I don't think there is a need for extragear and playground > any more. When a project starts it should have the same rights and obligations > as any other current extragear app. In addition we should come up with While I don't have any stake in this discussion -- when I die, there'll be this on my headstone "Here lies Boud, he worked on Krita, boring guy, otherwise" -- I really agree with the way you're thinking. -- Boudewijn Rempt | http://www.krita.org, http://www.valdyas.org