On 06/07/2011 01:41 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote: >>> Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE >>> development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would >>> also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable >>> if SDO were in KDE's git... >> >> It could be integrated into a "virtual" kdesupport, independent from where >> it is hosted. >> doesn't kdesrc-build actually do this ? > > The part "shared-desktop" of the name seems to imply that it's not that close > to the KDE development process. If they are so close to the KDE development > process, why aren't they called "kde ontologies" instead?
SDO is intended to be shared between desktop frameworks and was actually started as a shared project between KDE and Ghome. Sadly Tracker uses their own fork of it and does not contribute the changes back (although they have claimed to be planning to do it for a long time). Renaming it would be a IMHO bad move now. It being close to the KDE development process simply stems from the fact that I maintain it and add features when I need them for KDE. So the reasons are simply of a practical nature. Cheers, Sebastian > Otherwise, it looks like people from the other camp who name their > technologies under generic names like Notifications or libwebkit and pretend > that they are the official solution for everyone. >
