Hi, yes, it should be adapted depending on the application and never be forced when it does not make sense (else it would just lead to an useless documentation and time loss).
Thanks for the feedback, Johnny Le mer. 14 janv. 2026 à 14:57, Jonah Brüchert <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi, > > I don't think adding this as a general checklist item is a good idea. > Particularly while going though KDE review, many apps are simple enough > that writing docbook documentation is not necessary. For example, one of > my projects, AudioTube, only supported searching and playing songs when > going through the review as far as I remember. I would argue that even > now with slightly more features, almost nobody would think of looking > for documentation for this kind of app. > > To me, that hints that this is something that applies primarily to > productivity apps, and should not be a general requirement. > > In my opinion, KDE review should only check strictly necessary work, as > it otherwise can quite easily turn into a hurdle for developing apps in > KDE instead of externally. Already now, there are existing points that > to me should not be a requirement. > > > Op 14-01-2026 om 11:42 schreef Johnny Jazeix: > > Hi, > > > > Since we restored docs.kde.org, I would like to propose to add a new > > item in the checklist [1] for new projects (rewording welcome if > > needed): > > - [ ] User documentation in docbook format should exist in a doc (or > > docs) folder > > > > For now, the only item close to it in the KDE Review checklist is: > > - [ ] Documentation appropriate to the project: if a library, API > > documentation (such as [Doxygen](https://www.doxygen.nl/) for C++), if > > an application, user documentation (such as a README detailing what > > the application does or is for, how to install/build, and other such > > useful information) > > > > But it is not explicit enough about the format. > > > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > > Johnny > > > > [1] https://develop.kde.org/docs/getting-started/add-project/
