El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 20:49:45, Martin Klapetek va escriure: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > > El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 01:47:00, Martin Klapetek va escriure: > > > I would just like to point out that the review period of KPeople > > > is over and all the associated moves are in order, are they not? > > > What exactly is "enormously rushed" when the review period > > > is over and moves are rightfully requested? Perhaps that should > > > have been said in either of the "please review this proposal" emails > > > before, not after. > > > > > > KDE Telepathy also already has a dependency on KPeople > > > since ever, so there's no new dependency added. It's just being > > > moved from kdereview to frameworks. Is that a dependency > > > freeze violation? I read "it is not allowed to add new dependencies" > > > in the release schedule page. That is not what is happening. > > > > > > The only rush is to get KPeople tarball released a bit sooner so > > > that it can be there for KDE Applications Beta 1. That is all. > > > And that tarball could just as well be made from kdereview. > > > > We have some rules, one of them is that when we release a tarball, it must > > be > > able to be compiled against other released tarballs. I hope that's not > > hard to > > agree on. > > > > So we need the KPeople tarball before KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is > > out. > > > > Now KPeople wants to be a framework and thus is not on the same relase > > schedule as KDE Applications 15.04. > > > > So to achieve the "tarballs have to compile against released tarballs" > > KPeople > > should have been part of the past release, not of Frameworks release that > > is > > after KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is released. > > > > Thus KPeople was late and we had to rush it a bit. > > Yes, but the only thing "rushed" is the release of KPeople tarball about 8 > days sooner. > Everything else is pretty much in order, so there's definitely not an > "enormous rush" > to things and not at all a freeze violation. > > > > (and yes I'm a bit annoyed by all this crap I'm getting for this > > > only now and not a month before when was the right time) > > > > I'm sorry you're getting annoyed by people trying to make sure we > > collectively > > follow the few rules we have given ourselves. > > No, I'm annoyed by the fact that all I hear is "this is rush rush rush rush > mess mess mess" > and only _after_ all the moves have had happened. That's why there is the > review period. > And I started it since beginning of February. Nobody in the review periods > asked the > right questions, nobody really objected or disagreed to anything and > suddenly it's all rush > and mess while it's just one single tarball in question and already with a > solution. > > Makes me think that maybe the review process does not work that well...
Correct, the review process doesn't work well at all, and hasn't been for a long time, there's not enough people with enough different skills reviewing the apps/libs. Albert > > If you don't agree with the rules you're more than welcome to propose > > > improvements or modifications, maybe that way we will get more people > > caring > > and following them. > > I never said anything about not agreeing with the rules (and it's really > not about the rules). > > Cheers _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
