Re: Please move project task tracking to Phabricator

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 10:26:28 PM CET Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As some will be aware we currently have two Kanban board style
> solutions deployed - Kanboard at todo.kde.org and Phabricator at
> phabricator.kde.org.
> 
> In the long term we'd like to consolidate everything on Phabricator.
> It would therefore be appreciated if people could cleanup Kanboard,
> removing tasks and boards which have already moved over, and porting
> over items which haven't already been moved over.
> 
> If you need a Project created to organise your tasks, please file a
> sysadmin ticket.
> 
> Once the majority of projects have been cleaned up and migrated over
> we'll look at scheduling a shutdown date for todo.kde.org.

The last time this was brought up, it was said that sysadmins will do the 
migration and that one should not manually copy tasks?

So what should one do now? Manually recreate all tasks on phab? That seems 
like a huge manual effort which I don't have time for.

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Test your applications on Wayland

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:14:45 PM CEST Martin Graesslin wrote:
> Hello KDE application developers,
> 
> with Plasma 5.8 we have reached a quite solid state in the Wayland porting
> efforts. A state where you can start to test whether your application works
> correctly on Wayland. Normally your application should just work, but if not
> we need to know it before we start pushing Wayland to a wider audience.
> 
> So please start to test your application, Test it completely, even the most
> obscure functionality.

Just an example of an issue I run into today: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/
r/129171/

Application just crashed on startup due to a missing nullptr check exposed by 
a different windowing systems.

Hey all, it shouldn't be me finding and fixing such issues ;-)

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Test your applications on Wayland

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:23:06 PM CEST Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il giorno Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:14:45 +0200
> 
> Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> ha scritto:
> > Such isos have the latest code and also hand-picked patches for
> > QtWayland.
> 
> Can we have a list of these hand picked patches? Other distributions
> may be interested in applying them, or at least knowing what problems
> they fix.

Sure, assuming you are on Qt 5.7 (if you are not still on Qt 5.6: you want 
5.7)
* 25df38cad562c458538037b9e50552b6885e5d05 (explained in BUG 366509)
* 54b819679cd39e997cc9319deaf432c37667ae6f (explained in BUG 367843)
* acd10cd393abe04a8fd6fe3ab14055e09c85bc15 (explained in BUG 370518)

Best is of course if Qt would release a 5.7.1, so that this cherry-picking is 
no longer required. Most important is the first of those three patches as 
without the applications are pretty much unusable.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Test your applications on Wayland

[Martin Graesslin]

Hello KDE application developers,

with Plasma 5.8 we have reached a quite solid state in the Wayland porting 
efforts. A state where you can start to test whether your application works 
correctly on Wayland. Normally your application should just work, but if not 
we need to know it before we start pushing Wayland to a wider audience.

So please start to test your application, Test it completely, even the most 
obscure functionality.

If you hit a bug, please report it against product kwin, component wayland-
generic. We will take it from there and forward the bug report to the right 
component, be it in our code, your code, Qt code or even missing functionality 
in Wayland itself. Please report every issue, even if it is extremely minor - 
it might indicate a bug in QtWayland. I don't mind if I get too many bug 
reports due to an issue being reported a few times.

If for whatever reason a problem should exist in your code base we are happy 
to help you with porting it, so that it works on X11 and Wayland.

For testing I recommend to use a Wayland live iso like http://files.kde.org/
neon/images/plasma-wayland-devedition-gitunstable/current/

Such isos have the latest code and also hand-picked patches for QtWayland.

Thank you for helping our great Wayland endeavour.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask!

Cheers
Martin Graesslin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [kde-community] KDE Plasma Screencast

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 6:44:32 AM CEST Carlos Nihelton wrote:
> Sending to another screen.
> 
> It's pretty handy.

That's something which needs to be supported in the stack below Plasma. See 
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2015-December/096035.html for 
more information about an approach presented by Intel. Once that's supported 
it will work out-of-the-box without any adjustments from Plasma/GNOME Shell/
whatever side.

In addition some applications already support it, if it makes sense. Given the 
mailing list thread I linked above e.g. gstreamer supports it.

From Plasma's side I think the way Intel proposed it makes most sense. For 
Wayland one could consider adding support for it in KWin, but on X11 Plasma/
KWin is just the wrong layer for it.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> Rgds,
> 
> Carlos
> 
> On 08/01/2016 03:38 AM, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 8:36:25 PM CEST Carlos Nihelton wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >> 
> >> You might find this silly but since I met Android 6 screen cast feature
> >> I've been wondering why we don't have this feature embedded into our
> >> Desktop Environments.
> > 
> > What's the Android 6 screen cast feature? Do you mean "recording the
> > screen" or the send to another screen?
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this! : Feedback on survey draft

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 6:05:26 PM CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Montag, 23. Mai 2016 17:03:11 CEST Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:43:12 PM CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > I have created a survey draft at
> > > http://survey.kde.org/index.php/858172/lang-en
> > > 
> > > Now please everybody click through it and give feedback on anything that
> > > you think should be changed.
> > 
> > I have a problem with answering
> > "...strive to make our products available on all major Free and
> > proprietary
> > operating systems and platforms"
> > 
> > I'm all for making our apps available everywhere so would go very to the
> > left, but for Plasma I would go very to the right. And thinking about it:
> > not all products make sense everywhere. No matter how much I strive for
> > it,
> > KWin won't run on Windows (probably not even with the new Linux support in
> > Windows 10).
> > 
> > So maybe that needs to be more fine grained? Worded differently?
> 
> Would replacing "products" with "applications" work? Since you consider KWin
> a systems component and not an application, this sentence should not be of
> concern to KWin, right?

Yeah applications would solve this problem to me.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this! : Feedback on survey draft

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:43:12 PM CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> I have created a survey draft at
> http://survey.kde.org/index.php/858172/lang-en
> 
> Now please everybody click through it and give feedback on anything that you
> think should be changed.

I have a problem with answering 
"...strive to make our products available on all major Free and proprietary 
operating systems and platforms"

I'm all for making our apps available everywhere so would go very to the left, 
but for Plasma I would go very to the right. And thinking about it: not all 
products make sense everywhere. No matter how much I strive for it, KWin won't 
run on Windows (probably not even with the new Linux support in Windows 10).

So maybe that needs to be more fine grained? Worded differently?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this! : Feedback on survey draft

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:43:12 PM CEST Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> I have created a survey draft at
> http://survey.kde.org/index.php/858172/lang-en
> 
> Now please everybody click through it and give feedback on anything that you
> think should be changed.

I think the section "I consider myself as..." needs to be extended. I would 
like us to get information about what people are contributing to. Maybe the 
view of the world is different in various groups (e.g. Plasma devs and Kate 
devs). Also I would like to figure out how active the people.

So I suggest to include somthing like:
Last time contributed to KDE:
* this month
* during last three months
* during last half year
* during last year
* longer than a year ago
* longer than five years ago

And add a free text field with:
Project you contribute most to: (e.g. Plasma, Kate, translations, visual 
design, forums support, Wiki2Learn)

Freetext as I think we have too many projects to make it a drop down. So 
rather have people enter manually.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] KDE Mission - let's do this!

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, April 25, 2016 10:22:13 PM CEST Alexander Neundorf wrote: 
> For actual "embedded" it may be different, but unfortunately I don't see
> this happening. IMO plasma should be the go-to technology for any advanced
> embedded Linux UI. But it just is not, and I don't know why. There was
> almost no response to the GENIVI mail. Or maybe plasma is too complex for
> the typical embedded vendor or they are just quicker with getting something
> which works (but is less flexible etc.) by implementing a UI themselves.

I wouldn't interpret too much into the GENIVI mail. Just face the fact that 
evaluating the situation will take several days. Unfortunately the Plasma team 
is rather full with work. Yes I'm interested, but till I find an empty spot for 
that takes some time. The mail got send in the middle of the very stressful 
GSoC evaluation period, etc. etc. And even if there were no replies on the 
mailing list we did talk with Agustin in the #plasma IRC channel.

And yes from the wider community we don't get the support for such things in 
Plasma. Rather the opposite. We get pushback for anything leaving the 
traditional desktop. Constantly. Just like your mail here.

Cheers,
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] user stats for Neon

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:16:03 PM CEST Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> A while ago Albert gave a talk at Akademy about collecting some data
> on our users.  This got me thinking and with Neon I wanted to see how
> many installs we had.  Our package install software will check for new
> versions being available and I could count the IPs of this check but
> that's very unreliable.  Canonical counts IPs from the NTP ping at
> boot up but of course it's only useful at best as a relative metric of
> numbers of installs not absolute numbers.  So I added a machine-id to
> the URL it checks which is the unique value set at install time by
> systemd (/etc/machine-id) so now it has a good idea of being able to
> count the number of installs.
> 
> But KDE cares about privacy and it's in our Vision and I don't want to
> be accused of violating that.  But currently I can't see how this can
> violate users privacy any more than an IP address can so I'm curious
> to hear what arguments might come up against this.

I think the very minimum is to inform the user about. That can also be on the 
download page where one downloads the iso. If the user knows about it and 
doesn't like it, he can just decide to not install, leave an angry message in 
forums and we get then also feedback :-P

Joke aside: I wanted to have a "privacy center" integrated in systemsettings 
for quite some time [1]. That's a thing which could go there.

Cheers
Martin

[1] We have the awesome location service which we don't properly use as we 
need users to acknowledge the privacy bits.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 12:07:27 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> 
wrote:
> > Why should there be a line?
> 
> I've been managing software development organizations since 2008. I
> attest to the importance of drawing a line. There's so much you can do
> with software. Unless you learn to say "no", you will not make a good
> product.
> 
> By the way, I learned this the hard way in open source world too. Let
> me tell you a story.
> 
> When I was a KDevelop maintainer during 3.x cycle, I welcomed every
> single KDevelop plugin into the core.
> 
> End result? We did not attract new developers this way, but instead
> were forced to maintain a huge collection of barely useful software
> with a small team.
> 
> During 4.x development we clearly defined the core of KDevelop. It was
> to be a great C++ IDE. Any plugin that did not fit into the core was
> separated into its own repository. What remained received as much
> attention as possible.
> 
> End result? A much better product. New contributors. And guess what?
> Some of the plugins that were separated not only survived, but saw
> more development and usage.

I interpret your answer as "KWin should not go into the cloud".

Thank you for your answer.

Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:37:33 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > So a vision which would ensure that also future technologies could be
> > served, would not harm that? Let's just not close doors.
> 
> Sure. But let's also not spread thin. Do you think it makes sense to
> find a middle ground between two proposals?

If we just look at the vision statement (which is in your draft not really 
defined) then yes I think they are extremely close. I see the explicit mention 
of GUI as a problem, because we already do more than GUI and saying GUI closes 
the door to any non GUI future technology.

On the mission side I think we are further apart, but that's a topic to 
discuss once the vision is settled.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 9:48:18 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 14:00:45 Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:01 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>
> 
> wrote:
> > > That's what we have been doing the last few years, so where are they?
> > > Where
> > > are the devs taking our application to mobile, etc. etc.
> > 
> > KF(5) has barely reached the point where it's usable on mobile
> > devices. Before it was too painful (I tried), and I know of several
> > examples where people went Qt-only to be able to produce a mobile app.
> > Same applies to cross-platform desktop apps.
> > 
> > I mean, there was a huge amount of work done within KDE to make this
> > possible. There's still a huge amount of work to make it easy. It's
> > about time to capitalize on that instead of trying every other cool
> > thing out there and spreading too thin.
> 
> +1

hey can we be a little bit more ambitious about KDE?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 10:22:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 15:11:47 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
> 
> > Maybe you could start thinking about that. What does it mean if THE GUI
> > maintainer doesn't want that? Maybe he has a better look on it with THE
> > GUI
> > knowledge?
> > 
> > Please don't completely dismiss my feedback. Think about it.
> 
> Yes, but I have really a hard time understanding it. I'm actually assuming
> there must be some misunderstanding, different bias or interpretation...
> 
> If the future interfaces won't be graphical, what other options do you see ?

I'm not a prophet, I have no clue what will be after graphical interfaces. But 
some things we already see today emerging: speech for starters. Another 
example are all this Virtual Reality stuff which is not graphical in the sense 
of a GUI. Our phones notifies through vibration. We have smart watches 
interacting through sensors with the body. All without a GUI.

There is a world beyond GUI. Things relevant to our users. Things relevant to 
privacy. I want KDE to be there, to give secure and privacy aware solutions 
also on future interaction patterns and not be limited by saying we only do 
GUI.

Cheers
Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 2:31:09 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Ok.
> I doubt anybody wants to fight about the definition, whether its the vision,
> or the mission, or the product vision, or vision+mission combined.
> 
> What our group wants to have, is getting some more attention back to the
> products created by the KDE community.
> 
> How do we call the stuff which is what most KDE software is typically doing
> ? It's not CLI, it's not braille, voice output (while great) is also not
> the core of KDE, it's not machine interfaces, "Free Software" is just too
> generic. (I'd call it GUI, since the computer presents information in a
> graphical way.)

Hi Alex,

I'm the maintainer of the application which makes your products visible on the 
screen. So to say my application is "THE GUI". I'm the one telling you over 
and over again that I don't want KDE to focus on GUI, to not have that written 
into the vision.

Maybe you could start thinking about that. What does it mean if THE GUI 
maintainer doesn't want that? Maybe he has a better look on it with THE GUI 
knowledge?

Please don't completely dismiss my feedback. Think about it.

Cheers
Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Fwd: KDE Vision – towards “wholesame” solutions

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 15, 2016 9:06:48 AM CET Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 15 February 2016 at 07:54, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 14, 2016 11:57:56 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> >> > I agree that integration within our projects is important. And I
> >> > believe it has suffered lately as the cohesion inside KDE became less.
> >> > My gut feeling is that this should go in the mission.
> >> > 
> >> > > I would suggest a sentence like the following:
> >> > > “KDE aims to offer complete, well-integrated solutions – while
> >> > > connecting
> >> > > different platforms, devices and online services.”
> >> > 
> >> > That sounds good to me.
> >> 
> >> To me too, but I still miss the reference that it is about software with
> >> graphical user interfaces (GUI's can also have gesture or voice input
> >> etc.), which Olaf seems to imply too.
> > 
> > I can only repeat my advice: please don't close doors for KDE by focusing
> > on GUI. There is a world beyond GUI and KDE partially already entered it.
> > Don't close it.
> 
> Maybe GUI -> UI would solve that. Or "primary focus is the UI".

Would be much better. It at least doesn't exclude things like speech 
recognition.

Nevertheless I would still suggest that we elaborate where KDE might be going 
and whether that fits under UI. Especially under consideration what we already 
do.

Using a simple example: today I created a GSoC project idea which is a docker 
container for KWin to be useable as a Plasma mobile emulator and also cloud. 
Is that UI? I don't know. It would render somwhere, but is that enough to 
consider it as a UI? Or is in that case KWin just a piece of server software 
without any UI (e.g. access through VNC/rdesktop/html5 with no direct 
interaction in KWin)?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 8:57:36 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 08:04:10 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:33 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:57 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:08:19 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:03:47 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> ...
> 
> > > so do I understand correctly that in general you would consider projects
> > > like a shell, a compiler and a text-mode editor as potential KDE
> > > projects
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > What's your opinion on one of the original goals of KDE to provide a set
> > > of
> > > software with a consistent look & feel and usability, stuff like common
> > > printing dialogs, file dialog, help systems, dialog layouts, etc, etc. ?
> > > 
> > > > > What about non-software projects like Project Gutenberg (free
> > > > > books),
> > > > > Jamendo  (free indie music), SubSurfWiki.org (free knowledge) ?
> > > > > Paraview (empowering students and scientists) ?
> > > > 
> > > > The draft states clear that we do Free software.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Where do you draw the line ?
> > 
> > Why should there be a line?
> 
> people have been asking exactly that wrt. to the focused vision all the time
> continuously, so I think the team of the inclusive-draft can also answer a
> few questions.

As you might know (or not), I'm not a member of the inclusive team and have 
not collaborated on the draft. I'm asking questions to get an informed opinion 
and to see how it aligns with my opinion.

I asked identical questions to both proposals. On one I got a good answer and 
didn't ask further question, on the other I didn't. So I continued to ask 
questions as I still don't really understand what it will mean for me and the 
projects I'm working on.

Because of that I would highly appreciate if you would answer my questions and 
not hijack my thread to ask questions on another proposal.

Thank you!

Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 12, 2016 11:45:53 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli  
wrote:
> > I honestly still find it strange that in this discussion we insist on
> > drawing a circle defining "what is/can be KDE" (which, once more, is not
> > what the vision would be supposed to mean) way smaller than what KDE
> > already is.
> 
> If KDE were doing great as is, we wouldn't have had this discussion
> today. I feel KDE lacks direction. But a broad vision proposal seems
> to just document the fact that KDE lacks direction and brings no
> value.

I can turn that 180 degree around and argue that we are currently too narrow 
minded to get new people in and are not doing great. Hey look all the awesome 
work with Plasma 5 and Wayland. We are doing desktop, desktop, desktop. Have a 
new mobile shell. And where are the devs? Where are the people following in 
that pretty clear direction?

So apparently having the direction seems not to work. People don't follow. So 
maybe we are too narrow? Lose the people who are actually out there and do hip 
stuff?

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:33 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2016 10:06:57 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:08:19 PM Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:03:47 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 23:15:21 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > I'll also start a new sub-thread.
> > > > > Since this vision draft is very broad: what kind of projects do you
> > > > > consider  to be covered by this vision draft ?
> > > > > Or, the other way round, are there projects, or types of projects
> > > > > which
> > > > > you see as not part of this vision ?
> > 
> > I don't know what exactly you mean with "being covered by" or "see as part
> > of the vision", but let's assume "projects that identify with the goals
> > described in our vision.
> > 
> > > > Sure. Projects that use open source licenses for purely economical
> > > > reasons, or those that don't care about the user, or her privacy.
> > > > 
> > > > A lot of it is about priorities, and the reason why people work on
> > > > these
> > > > project, their goals.
> > > 
> > > Let's get a bit more concrete.
> > > So I guess most GNU projects would fit ? Bash, gcc, emacs ?
> > 
> > GCC and Emacs (I couldn't find info about bash) require copyright
> > assigment
> > through a mandatory contributor license agreements *1. That would be
> > against KDE's manifesto. It makes sense to work together, but we disagree
> > about the how to do it.
> 
> so do I understand correctly that in general you would consider projects
> like a shell, a compiler and a text-mode editor as potential KDE projects ?
> 
> What's your opinion on one of the original goals of KDE to provide a set of
> software with a consistent look & feel and usability, stuff like common
> printing dialogs, file dialog, help systems, dialog layouts, etc, etc. ?
> 
> > > What about non-software projects like Project Gutenberg (free books),
> > > Jamendo  (free indie music), SubSurfWiki.org (free knowledge) ?
> > > Paraview (empowering students and scientists) ?
> > 
> > The draft states clear that we do Free software.
> 
> There's also a thin line here.
> Most web sites require some programming. Some more, some less. E.g. a
> knowledge site could have some special code for presenting/visualizing data,
> a music site could have custom solutions for streaming, etc.
> Where do you draw the line ?

Why should there be a line? So turning it around: if I start a cloud service 
within KDE to have KWin run in the cloud so that everyone can connect to it 
through a web browser, would that now start excluding KWin from KDE? If that 
then gets used to run Amarok in the cloud to stream music would that exclude 
Amarok from KDE?

Certainly not. And that's the problem I have with your approach. It's a two 
class world: everything which originates inside KDE is fine, but if it would 
come into KDE it's "No, no, that's not what we do!"

So instead of asking yourself what might join, please start to think where KDE 
might be going with their existing projects and derive your "line" from there.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 8:40:07 AM CET David Edmundson wrote:
> I have two main questions. I'll make them as new threads.
> 
> KDE as a community currently has a clear unique selling point for new
> projects; Qt libraries, Qt expertise, and connections. A common thread that
> makes it worth being a community. We've seen this work in the past with
> existing Qt projects like gcompris, tupi coming to us for that reason.
> 
> With the unfocussed vision, it seems we lose that. My question therefore is
> is, what is our USP, and what benefit is there for any new project to join
> us?

By widening our scope we don't lose our Qt expertise. We still are the Qt 
experts. Similar we didn't lose our Linux/Unix knowledge by supporting Windows 
and OSX and we don't lose our X11 knowledge by going Wayland.

Personally I also disagree about Qt being a common thread that makes it worth 
being a community. When I joined KDE I didn't know Qt, I hardly knew C++. The 
fact that it was Qt was pretty much irrelevant for me and certainly not the 
reason why I sticked around.

> what is our USP

do we have one currently? I don't think so. But from the vision I'd say 
creating free software which puts the end user in control of their digital 
life.

> what benefit is there for any new project to join us?

Those listed in the manifesto.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:00:52 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 07:55:08 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> ...
> 
> > This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through.
> > I'm worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your vision
> > setting a focus on past technologies, which will result in stagnation,
> > shrinking and death
> 
> I actually don't consider normal desktop PCs, notebooks, tablets,
> smartphones, smart watches etc. etc, everything that displays something,
> all as "past technology" not worth putting effort into it.

And that's not what I said. " I'm worried about your vision closing a path for 
the future" - that doesn't say anything about the present.

> 
> Even if it may not be the technology we'll have in 20 years, it is IMO still
> worth putting work into it, e.g. all Android-devices, for the next few
> years.

So a vision which would ensure that also future technologies could be served, 
would not harm that? Let's just not close doors.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 11:15:38 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 09, 2016 20:37:29 Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Alexander Dymo  wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:41 AM, Lydia Pintscher  wrote:
> > >> The technology is something that does not belong into the vision.
> > > 
> > > Why? It would be strange for the tech organization/community like KDE,
> > > IMHO of course.
> > 
> > You cut off the part of my email with the reasoning: "It can go into
> > the mission statement because it is a part of how we get to where we
> > want to go. It is not the place we want to go." Or in other words it
> > is too specific for a vision.
> 
> To me, this vision draft presented here is also very broad.
> Actually I think that only very few Free software projects would disagree to
> it. I mean, it is not too different from the ideas which motivate the GPL.

Personally I like that. I think it's awesome if we have a vision which would 
in extrem allow GNOME to say, hey let's join KDE.

> Do you have already a "mission" draft at hand, so it becomes more clear
> what you have in mind ?

Maybe first vision then mission?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

Hi,

thank you for your replies. Unfortunately I don't find these satisfying 
answers. I asked for explanations why not. This is completely missing. A we 
should do GUI is no explanation on why we should not be a leader in the next 
big thing. So please explain in more detail, why you think KDE should not be a 
leader in future technologies.

Please also consider how you want to attract new developers, young students to 
work on KDE? How are we going to get in new developers if we discourage 
working on the new shiny stuff everybody wants? That's how we all got into 
KDE. We worked on the new shiny stuff. How are we going to attract students to 
work on desktop apps, when they maybe have never seen a desktop? How will they 
know at all about KDE which is currently non-existing on mobile even?

Furthermore how are you convincing the existing developer base to continue to 
work on KDE software if there is no prospect of leading in the next big thing? 
How do you convince me to continue to develop the desktop when I don't see a 
future for KDE due to not willing to go to the next thing?

Cheers
Martin

On Friday, February 5, 2016 4:54:31 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> A couple of years ago everybody though people will do all their tasks
> through the web browser. That turned out not to be the case.
> Applications made a huge comeback to mobile, and now to desktop. I
> agree with AlexN that this is where KDE's opportunity lies. Not in a
> cloud, not in knowledge management. It's here, in app development, the
> area of our expertise.
> 
> PS: not to say we should ignore the cloud. There are myriad of ways of
> integrating with cloud services which individual apps should
> definitely explore and implement.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Alexander Neundorf  wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >> Thus now my question: How will this vision provide us guidance for the
> >> next
> >> disruption? How will we be able to use this vision to be a leader in the
> >> next disruption? Please explain why you think that the vision will help
> >> in
> >> the next disruption. If you don't think that the vision is for that
> >> please
> >> also explain why you think that. E.g. if you think we shouldn't care
> >> about
> >> the next disruption, please explain the reasoning for it.
> > 
> > just answering for myself: for me, KDE actually doesn't have to be the
> > leader in the next disruption. For me, it is ambitious enough to become
> > the leader in a defined, but still wide area. Also in the future there
> > will be the need for local GUI software on normal PCs, notebooks,
> > tablets, smartphones, maybe projected interfaces. I want KDE to stay
> > focused on that for now, this is where we have expertise, we don't need
> > to throw that away.
> > Once such local software is not needed anymore (will that happen ? I don't
> > know), something will happen with KDE. Either it will fade away, or it
> > will
> > have slowly shifted by itself into some new direction. As I wrote, this
> > draft is not for eternity, it gives a focus for today.
> > 
> > And today, I still see so much work to do for the next few years. I don't
> > want us to give up on mobile. I have an awful mix of various apps on my
> > personal tablet/smartphones. We as KDE can do so much better than that:
> > free software, no ads, consistent user interfaces, reliable quality, etc.
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > ___
> > kde-community mailing list
> > kde-community@kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
> 
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 2:37:26 AM CET Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
> As part of the Student Programs admin team, to me it is pretty clear:
> we should act as the umbrella for friendly teams who pull their own
> weight, whether or not they intend to become KDE projects officially
> in the near future. By saying NO we effectively tell them we don't
> want to work with them.
> 
> We work with students whether or not they plan to become KDE community
> members for life. We've had mentors who were not part of the KDE
> community but rather experts in the needed field. I hope we decide to
> do the same for orgs who want to do GSoC with us.

+1

question: how do we decide what is a "friendly team" ;-) I mean what are the 
criteria whether we let a project join or not. Everybody welcome would be a 
sufficient answer to that.

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, February 5, 2016 10:03:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:10:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> >> The first draft reads as follows:
> >> "KDE, through the creation of Free software, enables users to control
> >> their digital life. KDE software enables privacy, makes simple things
> >> easy and complex scenarios possible while crossing device boundaries."
> > 
> > In the world of IT we see again and again the introduction of disruptive
> > technologies which change the field of computing. In the past KDE as a
> > community mastered some of them great, some of them badly. When KDE
> > started
> > the world was in the middle of the disruption known as the Internet. KDE
> > handled it great. Today basically every person connecting to the Internet
> > is using a KDE technology for that.
> > 
> > The next disruption "mobile" wasn't handled well, though. We were years
> > too
> > late and still haven't really got there. From our hundreds of applications
> > only 3 are available on the most important distribution channel for mobile
> > application. We clearly missed this disruption.
> > 
> > Currently we are again in an disruptive stage. We have the cloud and
> > social
> > networks. Again we are moving slowly and are not adapting to the
> > disruptive
> > change. But we had good cards for cloud with e.g. ownCloud. Overall I
> > don't
> > see any strategy on how to move our applications into the cloud and how to
> > integrate the cloud better. We were great in the Internet age, but are not
> > catching up. Similar the social net is not integrated at all into our
> > products. Thus I would conclude that we are missing this disruption just
> > like the last one.
> > 
> > Personally I think that we missed them because we didn't have a clear
> > vision on where to go and were too focused on the good old things.
> > 
> > Thus now my question: How will this vision provide us guidance for the
> > next
> > disruption? How will we be able to use this vision to be a leader in the
> > next disruption? Please explain why you think that the vision will help
> > in the next disruption. If you don't think that the vision is for that
> > please also explain why you think that. E.g. if you think we shouldn't
> > care about the next disruption, please explain the reasoning for it.
> 
> That's an excellent question, Martin!
> 
> I think we absolutely should care about the next disruption. Let's
> take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about disruptive innovation:
> "A disruptive innovation is an innovation that creates a new market
> and value network and eventually disrupts an existing market and value
> network, displacing established market leaders and alliances. The term
> was defined and phenomenon analyzed by Clayton M. Christensen
> beginning in 1995. More recent sources also include "significant
> societal impact" as an aspect of disruptive innovation." I think this
> last part is crucial to answer your question.
> Innovation (disruptive in the true sense or not) after innovation we
> see over the last years makes our digital life easier, more things
> possible and social connections across cultural and social barriers
> more easy and immediate. At the same time we see two very disturbing
> trends: technology gets more closed - at least the ones adopted on a
> large scale by consumers and we more willingly accept being spied on
> for our own or other's perceived good. We seem to more readily accept
> that the book on your Kindle can't easily be shared with your friend -
> or that it might vanish the next day. We seem more ready to accept
> that we can't repair our own car anymore. This has a huge impact on
> society. So how do I see KDE fit into this? I believe in two ways.
> 1) We are there to provide a viable and even better alternative for
> every-day people. We need to show that we can have all the benefits
> technology brings us while not having to give up control and
> sovereignty. This starts on your personal devices you use every day to
> do work and enjoy life.
> 2) We need to be there to show people that they can tinker. We need to
> show them that they don't have to accept closed systems but that they
> can actually meaningfully alter their personal world and how they
> interact with the rest of the world. The shift towards more and more
> closed systems in consumer technology is only going to change if
> people demand it. We need to remind them that they can.

Thank you for the well elaborated answer!

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 2:00:43 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Saturday, February 06, 2016 19:39:35 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > On Samstag, 6. Februar 2016 16:47:31 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > Yes. I think the vision statement needs to be complemented by a mission
> > > statement. But I think, before we tackle the mission statement, we
> > > should
> > > nail down the vision.
> 
> I think the main difference is that it mentions local applications/software
> with GUIs explicitely (that's the "focus" ;-) ).

I have followed the discussion so far and asked many questions to try to 
understand where the difference is and where the focus is. My interpretation 
of the gathered answer is that there is no "focus". The provided answers were 
contradicting and whenever one went on towards "so you want to have this not 
in KDE" it was "oh no, we want that". Server software is fine, cloud is fine. 
Everything seems to be included. I don't see where the focus is you want. I 
was not able to derive any rule on what would fit into KDE and what not. I was 
not able to see the focus.

What I gathered from the replies looked like that anything coming from within 
KDE is fine. If I would start writing server software from within KDE it will 
be fine, but if I would start to work it outside it's not fine to get in. 
That's 
what I gathered from the replies. This worries me.

From the replies I read I have a feeling that you haven't made up your mind 
yet what the "focus" means. It gives me a feeling that each project to join 
would be questioned in detail, whether it matches the perceived "focus". Not 
very welcoming.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:16:41 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thursday, February 04, 2016 07:53:06 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > > I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> > > participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> > > important difference between them.
> > > 
> > > The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> > > aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> > > not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> > > 
> > > The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> > > applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> > > tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
> > 
> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI,
> 
> the vision draft we present here is not a long term vision which changes the
> future of computing.
> It presents ambitious, but realistic goals for the next few years.

Currently our vision is the one Matthias set out for us in the initial 
starting of KDE mail. So we have a vision which served us for 20 years. It 
worked for us for about 15 years (didn't fit mobile). So I think any vision we 
come up to replace the existing one should aim for helping us for at least the 
next 15 years including future technology transitions.

Cheers
Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 5:09:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> In that mail I omitted the "GUI" somewhere near the "free software".
> We do agree with Alex N about that.

Just follow the last three replies to that thread and try to understand why I 
think your answers are contradicting and there is no focus. You are jumping 
around. I have a hard time following that and a hard time to understand the 
aims of your vision. A vision which is difficult to understand, is not helpful. 
Sorry to say so.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli  wrote:
> > On Monday, February 08, 2016 01:12:51 PM Alexander Dymo wrote:
> >> We pointed many times that the focus is on free software
> >> for mobile: hybrid laptop, tablet, phone, and any existing or future
> >> personal computing device.
> > 
> > So your vision wants KDE to target mobile computing?  What about desktops,
> > web, and other platforms we're targetting right now? Alex says, for
> > example
> > something broader and different: local UIs.
> > 
> > Bye,
> > -Riccardo
> 
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 1:02:47 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote:
> > why you think KDE should not be a leader in future technologies.
> 
> What are these future technologies?
> I think you're just not convinced this is the future, right?

Sorry, I dont' have the capabilities to see what will be the future 
technologies. And I think neither do you. I consider it as likely that we will 
have a GUI less future, due to emerging technologies which I had already 
listed in another mail to show that a focus on GUI is not sufficient:
* speech recognition
* IoT
* sensors

But anyway I asked a question and would like to see an answer to it.

> 
> > How do you convince me to continue to develop the desktop when I don't see
> > a future for KDE due to not willing to go to the next thing?
> 
> You've already listed several "things". Which ones from them do you
> think are most important to work on?

This was more a rhetorical question. Apparently it didn't make it through. I'm 
worried about your vision closing a path for the future. Your vision setting a 
focus on past technologies, which will result in stagnation, shrinking and 
death. I'm asking you why I as a developer should contribute my time for a 
dieing community?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:38:56 AM CET Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > I'm not sure whether it's against the manifesto. Is that really a
> > "benefit"
> > that we do some admin work for them? One could also see it as an
> 
> I would not be against us being admins of an external project that has
> its own slots.
> 
> I am *very* against giving our slots to non-kde projects. We already
> had problems with this a few years ago, I would rather avoid the
> unpleasantries that happened back then.

on the other hand last year we were not really able to fill the slots and 
lacked mentors.

Cheers
martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - first draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:10:27 AM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> The first draft reads as follows:
> "KDE, through the creation of Free software, enables users to control
> their digital life. KDE software enables privacy, makes simple things
> easy and complex scenarios possible while crossing device boundaries."

In the world of IT we see again and again the introduction of disruptive 
technologies which change the field of computing. In the past KDE as a 
community mastered some of them great, some of them badly. When KDE started 
the world was in the middle of the disruption known as the Internet. KDE 
handled it great. Today basically every person connecting to the Internet is 
using a KDE technology for that.

The next disruption "mobile" wasn't handled well, though. We were years too 
late and still haven't really got there. From our hundreds of applications 
only 3 are available on the most important distribution channel for mobile 
application. We clearly missed this disruption.

Currently we are again in an disruptive stage. We have the cloud and social 
networks. Again we are moving slowly and are not adapting to the disruptive 
change. But we had good cards for cloud with e.g. ownCloud. Overall I don't 
see any strategy on how to move our applications into the cloud and how to 
integrate the cloud better. We were great in the Internet age, but are not 
catching up. Similar the social net is not integrated at all into our 
products. Thus I would conclude that we are missing this disruption just like 
the last one.

Personally I think that we missed them because we didn't have a clear vision 
on where to go and were too focused on the good old things.

Thus now my question: How will this vision provide us guidance for the next 
disruption? How will we be able to use this vision to be a leader in the next 
disruption? Please explain why you think that the vision will help in the next 
disruption. If you don't think that the vision is for that please also explain 
why you think that. E.g. if you think we shouldn't care about the next 
disruption, please explain the reasoning for it.

Thank you!
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 7:52:34 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Focused does not mean exclusive. Every technology (and not only
> technology) that gets us to the point where all users use KDE shells
> and apps (because of their superiority) is welcome. IMHO, of course.

sorry, but I cannot follow you. What you wrote here is inclusive again. So 
what you want now: focus on a technology or being inclusive to everything?

> 
> Another point is that not everything needs to be built in house. When
> I started free software development, it was harder for independent
> small projects to survive. It was much better for them to join the big
> groups, like GNU, GNOME, KDE, etc. Now this is not the case. So I'd
> expect some of the technologies that KDE can use to be actually
> developed elsewhere.

And here you basically say any development on new technologies should happen 
outside of KDE. Which is pretty excluding and contradicting to what you write 
above.

To me this is really confusing as I don't see how that can aid us in finding a 
direction.

Further clarifications are appreciated. Right now I'm more confused than 
before.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> 
wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> >> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> >> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> >> important difference between them.
> >> 
> >> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> >> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> >> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> >> 
> >> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> >> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> >> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
> > 
> > may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI,
> > I'm thinking of areas like:
> > * speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
> > * IoT
> > * Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost
> > there)
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> > ___
> > kde-community mailing list
> > kde-community@kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
> 
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:53:57 AM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> Let's take one of your examples: some imaginary sensory tech that
> follows your mind. It's going to be a competitive advantage to both
> Plasma and applications, for sure. Can it be a KDE project? Yes,
> because it clearly brings KDE closer to its goal. And actually, both
> visions/missions would support inclusion of such a tech into KDE.

Now that you make it more clear that the focus of a technology would be 
whether it helps for example Plasma I need to chime in.

As a maintainer of Plasma and as the maintainer of the largest single piece of 
software inside Plasma I want to say that I'm against a focus on Plasma. I do 
not want to see KDE decide for projects whether they give a "competitive 
advantage" to Plasma. I thought we had left this years behind us. Although my 
work is focused on Linux I'm happy for the Windows and OSX and Android efforts 
and want KDE to be strong in these areas. I'm afraid that any focus on Plasma 
will harm KDE and thus also Plasma.

Furthermore I must observe that the KDE community as large does not care about 
Plasma and a focus on Plasma. Please have a look on how many devs contribute 
to e.g. KWin and the Wayland effort. It's what will take the desktop to the 
next level, but hardly anybody works on it. So from my perspective: a focus on 
the desktop is in all way wrong for KDE. That's not KDE.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 1:46:16 PM CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:40:58 +0100, Martin Graesslin ha scritto:
> > to use a specific technology. It's totally fine if we go ahead and say
> > our technology stack includes systemd, networkmanager and apparmor. If
> > your distro cannot do that it's not providing the best expected
> > experience. In reality we don't have the manpower to test multiple
> 
> I'm answering you but this is a point more general, which I overlooked
> before: don't forget that distributions ship other software!
> 
> And said software has to work and coexist with KDE software. So as a
> distribution, often we have to take compromises to ensure everything works
> as intended.

Yes I know, that's the obvious reply you get from distros. And I call BULLSHIT 
to that. If a distribution ships with a broken bluetooth setup, because 
another desktop requires an outdated version there is something broken in this 
so deeply that I cannot find words about it.

That's the nonesense which has to stop. I get that distros have problem with 
that, but then the users should know about it. And we can do that by saying 
which requirements we want and which distros can serve it. So that users can 
do an educated evaluation of the situation. Hey I need bluetooth and $DISTRO 
cannot, so I go for $OTHERDISTRO.

Also I think there is always a way to solve it if the distros really tried. 
It's so awesome that users can install multiple DEs, but is that a reason to 
ship them all broken? If they need different conflicting technologies one can 
conflict in the packages.

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:05:05 PM CET Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:01 PM Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote:
> > No, that's not what I'm saying. First of all we need to realize that we
> > have a
> > big problem (yay for Thomas), second we need to find a solution to the
> > problem.
> > Currently we are brainstorming ideas and I think that needs to continue.
> > But
> > pretending there is no problem and continue as we used to work, does
> > obviously
> > not solve the problems.
> > 
> > Personal note: as some might have noticed I'm deeply disappointed with the
> > state of our software in distros. And I'm envious to Unity which has
> > Ubuntu
> > and Cinnamon which has Mint and GNOME Shell which has Fedora Workstation.
> > And
> > OSX which has OSX and Windows which has Windows.
> 
> Are there things we can do to help the people inside the distributions who
> are fighting for us and want to get our software to the enduser in a good
> state?

I think some aspects discussed here can help those people. E.g. a list of 
requirements could help to have a stronger standing when a technology needs 
updating.

Also we could provide ways which make it easier for distributions to share 
experiences, so that mistakes don't get repeated.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:46:26 AM CET Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
> > 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.

No, that's not what I'm saying. First of all we need to realize that we have a 
big problem (yay for Thomas), second we need to find a solution to the problem. 
Currently we are brainstorming ideas and I think that needs to continue. But 
pretending there is no problem and continue as we used to work, does obviously 
not solve the problems.

Personal note: as some might have noticed I'm deeply disappointed with the 
state of our software in distros. And I'm envious to Unity which has Ubuntu 
and Cinnamon which has Mint and GNOME Shell which has Fedora Workstation. And 
OSX which has OSX and Windows which has Windows.

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] RFC: Distribution outreach program

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:15:37 PM CET Luca Beltrame wrote:
> Il Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:57:02 +0100, Martin Graesslin ha scritto:
> > Yes I know, that's the obvious reply you get from distros. And I call
> > BULLSHIT to that. If a distribution ships with a broken bluetooth setup,
> 
> Let me get the reverse in: we had to jump through several hoops at
> openSUSE because GNOME needed GStreamer 1.0 and Phonon only supported 0.10
> at the time.

yes I know. On the other hand it's also a problem of gstreamer if two versions 
cannot be installed at the same time. And of course such migration need to be 
handled better with more collaboration. E.g. GNOME notifying distros early 
about their wish to upgrade, those notifying other projects about the 
requirement to upgrade.

> 
> We worked this out, but as you can see is a problem that affects *all*
> software, not just ours

which is awesome! As I wrote there is a solution to each problem. One just 
needs to want to (and yes I know that finding solutions might conflict with 
release schedules and what not).

> . And especially in "egalitarian" distros, where
> all desktops and software have the same dignity, this is bound to happen.

One could also say that this results into "all DEs are crappy". And then the 
egalitarian distro will suffer compared to those which are not.

> 
> > a reason to ship them all broken? If they need different conflicting
> > technologies one can conflict in the packages.
> 
> Where we can do something, we can. But don't forget that like KDE, distros
> are sets of people. e.g., you may all know everything about KWin, but not
> about Krita, I know what's going on in the KDE side of openSUSE, but not
> the minutiae of the GNOME team. And for larger distros like Debian, this
> is even more relevant.
> 
> There are places where ideas are discussed, and solution proposed. But
> don't think everyone knows about everything. So issues like these will
> always occur.

This is something I have unfortunately noticed in bad ways too often. Like you 
contact the KDE team about a problem and it goes nowhere because it's not 
their area of expertise.

Cheers
Martin



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] finding a clear vision for KDE - an alternative draft for discussion

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:05:20 PM CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: 
> We are happy to get comments or any other feedback on this draft, and we are
> looking forward to a lively and constructive discussion about the future of
> KDE.

I'm sorry to say, but I don't see any vision in your document. What is the 
essence I should grasp from reading that document? The one thing which the 
community can combine and rally behind it? What I see instead are various 
goals/missions which I think would be covered by the vision draft shared by 
Lydia.

So can I have a TLDR of your vision statement?

Cheers
Martin


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Should we allow non-KDE projects to participate in GSoC under KDE?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2:58:54 PM CET Martin Klapetek wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> so in the couple previous years we have collectively and
> repeatedly rejected the idea of other projects, that are not
> KDE projects by the Manifesto, to participate in KDE GSoC.
> Namely we rejected Tupi and SubSurface solely because
> "not a KDE project", GCompris became a KDE project and
> then we let it participate.
> 
> Last year we got a non-KDE project in our GSoC despite the
> previous years decisions, nobody really noticed and then there
> was a huge discussion if that's ok or not, but by that time it was
> a bit late.
> 
> So I'd like to have this cleared - does the community agree to
> have non-KDE projects, those that do not follow the Manifesto,
> participate in our GSoC this year and in the following years?
> 
> Imho this goes against the Manifesto as the projects gets to
> "enjoy the benefits" without the complying with "commitments"
> of the Manifesto.

I'm not sure whether it's against the manifesto. Is that really a "benefit" 
that we do some admin work for them? One could also see it as an outreach to 
projects: hey look, we can do that much for you, don't you want to join, then 
you get also mentioned on the dot...

> It's also less transparent overall (not able to
> monitor progress as it's not on KDE infrastructure), can lead
> to cheating and possibly kicking KDE out of GSoC in the worst
> possible outcome.

Agree on that point. Also if we go for allowing we need to have clear rules in 
place to evaluate who goes in and who doesn't.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Differences between proposed vision drafts (or "inclusive" vs "focused")

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:44:35 PM CET Alexander Dymo wrote:
> I reread both drafts and realized that people who have not
> participated in the development of these proposals might miss the
> important difference between them.
> 
> The Lydia & Co see KDE providing users free software to manage any
> aspect of their digital life: GUI environments, applications (GUI and
> not), knowledge management systems, etc.
> 
> The AlexN. & Co see KDE providing users free GUI environments and
> applications that work on any computing device: desktop, laptop,
> tablet, smartphone, or any other device present and future.
>

may I ask where the focused group sees the future in a world beyond GUI, I'm 
thinking of areas like:
* speech recognition (e.g. KDE Lera)
* IoT
* Sensors (think of the old joke of "Focus Follows Mind", but we're almost 
there)

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] A call for finding Free imgur replacement

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, September 28, 2015 7:52:29 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Hi,
> Not everyone uses it but some KDE people do: imgur.com and similar
> services for online image pastes.
> Including me.
> 
> The usage rate is much heavier than hithub but it's not indicated it
> as a big deal.
> But it is: bug report, review requests, emails (including mailing
> lists) and wikis link to these files that disappear after months or
> weeks.
> The effect is: losing information, losing the backlog.
> 
> Equivalent Free services do not exist to my knowledge. I mean
> equivalent, with public access working with the pastebin plasmoid for
> example.

What about paste.opensuse.org - that's what I use for screenshot sharing.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:25:05 AM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 September 2015, Shantanu Tushar Jha <shant...@kde.org>
> 
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>
> 
> wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 18, 2015 5:29:01 PM CEST Albert Vaca wrote:
> >> > From my experience, I was already mirroring KDE Connect in Github and
> 
> I've
> 
> >> > received valuable patches there. That's a big enough reason for me to
> 
> want
> 
> >> > Github's pull requests (and to spend 15 minutes learning how to use
> 
> them),
> 
> >> > but I understand not everybody wants to learn a new and non-free tool.
> >> 
> >> I'm subscribed to kde-connects review requests for reviewboard. How am I
> 
> as an
> 
> >> interested developer able to follow the code review for github pull
> 
> requests
> 
> >> if I don't want to use them?
> >> 
> >> Basically by the decision to opt-in for pull requests you force the
> 
> complete
> 
> >> team to follow them. Otherwise not-reviewed code gets in.
> >> 
> >> We really need to think in the big picture of what means this to KDE. We
> >> shouldn't go the "selfish" road and think of your own project. By
> 
> allowing
> 
> >> github pull-requests we are pushing out the contributors who don't want
> 
> to use
> 
> >> it. You make it impossible for those contributors to comment on review
> >> requests, thus you have split the development.
> >> 
> >> This is scary. Please don't think "selfish". Let people create the pull
> >> request and answer it with:
> >> "Sorry we do not support git hub pull request. To submit code please use
> >> reviewboard.kde.org. Here's how you do it..."
> >> 
> >> The point is we want to get to the people on github. That's why we
> 
> mirror.
> 
> >> It's not about getting pull requests. We want the people! They already
> 
> spent
> 
> >> the effort to create the patch, they will spent the additional time to
> 
> get to
> 
> >> reviewboard of phabricator in future. I have so often got patches on
> 
> bugzilla
> 
> >> and it never was a problem to tell them "please use reviewboard for the
> 
> patch
> 
> >> submission as the UI is more streamlined for code review". We always got
> 
> the
> 
> >> patch into reviewboard. The aim of the people is not to use pull
> 
> requests, the
> 
> >> aim is to submit their patch!
> > 
> > +1 to that. And adding to it, IMO the most important thing here is
> 
> consistency. The last thing we want to have is newcomers getting confused
> "erm, so for this KDE project do I use reviewboard? or do I create a pull
> request?".
> 
> 
> 
> But you just got confused by the claim from Martin, use of github reviews
> isn't proposed also because our repos are readonly there!
> Please read what I propose not strawmans...

I replied to Albert and Albert said he wants to do code-review through github 
(and already does so). So no it's not strawman. If we allow pull requests we 
move part of our code-review infrastructure to github. Period! If we allow 
github we exclude everyone in the sub project from reviewing patches who don't 
want to use github.


Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:19:16 PM CEST Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:58:09 AM Michael Pyne wrote:
> > Is anyone actually arguing this point in the way you ask? No one's asking
> > to  prevent "one offs" entirely, the core of the issue is that KDE
> > development should happen *within* KDE-the-whole-community, not *apart
> > from* KDE.
> 
> Nobody is proposing to move there the development! And pull requests are
> really "one offs", no stable contributor would sensibly use them as a
> regular basis, just like no stable contributor doesn't get an account and
> develops only through mailing patches...
> 
> This whole thread started with one sentence which started like "if somebody
> sends me a patch, it doesn't matter if she/he sends it to me via mail,
> github, or by post... if it's good work, I am going to integrate it". I
> think we should keep to that and not escalate it to "some KDE projects move
> to github for development".
> 
> I think there was some confusion on that point, so let me state this again:
> the agreement is that github mirrors ARE going to be kept read-only, so
> someone with a KDE account and the developer karma still has to push the
> patch to git.kde.org (or reviewboard or so on...), if he wants to see it
> integrated. I don't see how that destroys our values. I just see it as a
> way through which potential newcomers can submit their first contribution,
> instead of mailing a patch.
> 
> At least, in my view, the mirrors will STILL be *READ-ONLY*.

I disagree. What I write now I mean for anything hosted under KDE/* and not 
e.g. mgraesslin/*

If we have some projects accepting pull requests it creates pressure for other 
projects to also accept pull requests. This means my identity.kde.org account 
is no longer enough to maintain a KDE project.

Pullrequests in the github are more than a way to submit a patch. It's also 
code review. At the point where this would happen, part of the community is 
excluded from participating in the code review process. Even more part of our 
code actually moves to github. Previous versions of the patch are then only 
available through github infrastructure.

Thus I see the requests of allowing github pull requests as a way to move 
development to github.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] What is a GitHub pull request exactly?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:32:33 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> If the problem is somewhere in (a), where is it?

I'm afraid of code review happening through the pull request instead of our 
infrastructure. To me github pull requests are not just the "here's the 
patch", but also the code review.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:57:09 PM CEST Eike Hein wrote:
> On 09/19/2015 05:54 PM, Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> > while rejecting them autmatically isjust a great way to drive potential
> > contributors away...
> 
> Which is a good reason why the mirror shouldn't have happened
> - regret being on vacation during that time.

If I had known this would happen I would not have proposed it. I'm deeply 
sorry that I initiated this project.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] What is a GitHub pull request exactly?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:11:21 PM CEST you wrote:
> On Saturday, September 19, 2015 05:47:38 PM Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:32:33 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > > If the problem is somewhere in (a), where is it?
> > 
> > I'm afraid of code review happening through the pull request instead of
> > our
> > infrastructure. To me github pull requests are not just the "here's the
> > patch", but also the code review.
> 
> Can we agree to have pull requests enabled in case the code review keeps
> happening on reviewboard? I think everybody could agree on that point...

And how do we do that? Can we enforce this technically or will that be 
weakened over the time the same way as we just turned the mirror into "let's 
accept pull requests"?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] What is a GitHub pull request exactly?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:26:34 PM CEST Martin Klapetek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Boudhayan Gupta <bgu...@kde.org> wrote:
> > On 19 September 2015 at 21:17, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:32:33 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > >> If the problem is somewhere in (a), where is it?
> > > 
> > > I'm afraid of code review happening through the pull request instead of
> > 
> > our
> > 
> > > infrastructure. To me github pull requests are not just the "here's the
> > > patch", but also the code review.
> > 
> > This.
> > 
> > The other problem is that the PR submitter may not have a KDE
> > identity, in which case we have no way of representing the fellow and
> > properly crediting the commit to him/her. We have to explicitly
> > redirect him to KDE's infrastructure for this.
> 
> That is not true. You can credit any commit to anyone
> 
> git commit --author "My Name <myem...@hello.org>"
> 
> which is a standard practice around KDE, when committing patches
> on behalf of newcomers who don't have write access.

In addition a nicely put commit through git format-patch and be applied 
through git am and then pushed with correct authorship.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] What is a GitHub pull request exactly?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:40:47 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Saturday, 2015-09-19, 17:47:38, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:32:33 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > > If the problem is somewhere in (a), where is it?
> > 
> > I'm afraid of code review happening through the pull request instead of
> > our
> > infrastructure. To me github pull requests are not just the "here's the
> > patch", but also the code review.
> 
> But wouldn't that be just additional code review?
> 
> Either on top of no code review or on before actual code review for projects
> that require it?

do you really think that it would be reviewed again on KDE code review after 
it has gone through github review?

How would that process look like? Maintainer playing proxy by passing back the 
requested changes to the github developer?

No reality would be that it slowly moves code review from KDE to github. And I 
think we have here quite some people in the discussion who would love to see 
that :-(

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:38:26 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Saturday, 2015-09-19, 17:53:17, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:46:07 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > > The patch would still go through review at KDE. Even with no github at
> > > all
> > > a patch could have been through several revisions before being
> > > submitted.
> > > The review always deals with the "final" submission (obviously not final
> > > if things need to be changed).
> > 
> > KDE does not have mandatory code review. I have to admit that I as a
> > maintainer have quite often pushed commits directly which went to me by
> > mail because I then reviewed them before pushing. Why uploading just to
> > press shipit?
> 
> Right.
> I was just saying that the workflow would be the same.
> Patches of new contributors would go through review, either formal or by an
> established contributor, just like they would now.
> 
> > My fear here is that if we allow pull request, people will also start to
> > use them for code review at which point we have split the development
> > team in those doing code review through reviewboard and those through
> > github.
> You mean that if a project currently doesn't to reviews, it would start
> doing so due to accepting github contributions and then doing those on
> github instead of the KDE tool?
> 
> Hmm, haven't though of that.
> 
> But wouldn't that, from the point of view of anyone else (existing
> contributors, other KDE contributors) just be like the status before? I.e.
> no code review?
> Just that the patches that get pushed are potentially of higher quality
> because they had actually been reviewed?

No, I'm afraid of code review slowly moving from KDE to github up to the final 
point where I need to get a github account because otherwise I cannot 
contribute code.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 6:49:48 PM CEST Vishesh Handa wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> 
wrote:
> > No, I'm afraid of code review slowly moving from KDE to github up to the
> > final point where I need to get a github account because otherwise I
> > cannot contribute code.
> 
> When/If that actually happens, you can bring it up and then we can
> deal with it. Dealing in extreme What-Ifs does not help this
> discussion.

yeah well, we also said github is only a mirror and pull requests are a non-
issue. Sorry but I at the moment have lost all trust.

Apart from that: then it's too late. Those who argue now for the pull requests 
will argue for it. If I want to keep the development on free infrastructure I 
must oppose before we start using non-free infrastructure - and please don't 
come now with Google+.

> 
> I can argue that KDE should not be hosting Windows binaries of
> applications because that promotes Windows, and slowly it will be
> impossible to contribute without Windows.
> 
> --
> Vishesh Handa
> ___
> kde-community mailing list
> kde-community@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Write our own pull request bot?

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:04:22 PM CEST Martin Klapetek wrote:
> Look, if the problem of github pull requests is the concern of KDE
> reviews eventually moving there (and create pressure on others etc),
> why don't we all throw one afternoon of our time and write a bot
> that will automatically import the pull request as a patch into phabricator?
> 
> That way, creating a pull request on github would get automatically
> imported on phabricator where we all could a) review it b) merge it
> without actually moving to github, but simply utilizing its resources.
> Seems like a win-win?
> 
> We could even base it on that bot that is automatically closing those
> pull requests that was linked twice already.
> 
> The only limitation I see is the needed Identity account for submitting
> patches on phabricator (right?), but other than that, how hard can it
> be(tm)?

+1 I like the idea

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:46:07 PM CEST Kevin Krammer wrote:
> On Saturday, 2015-09-19, 17:36:09, Martin Graesslin wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 19, 2015 5:19:16 PM CEST Riccardo Iaconelli wrote:
> > > I think there was some confusion on that point, so let me state this
> > > again:
> > > the agreement is that github mirrors ARE going to be kept read-only, so
> > > someone with a KDE account and the developer karma still has to push the
> > > patch to git.kde.org (or reviewboard or so on...), if he wants to see it
> > > integrated. I don't see how that destroys our values. I just see it as a
> > > way through which potential newcomers can submit their first
> > > contribution,
> > > instead of mailing a patch.
> > > 
> > > At least, in my view, the mirrors will STILL be *READ-ONLY*.
> > 
> > I disagree. What I write now I mean for anything hosted under KDE/* and
> > not
> > e.g. mgraesslin/*
> > 
> > If we have some projects accepting pull requests it creates pressure for
> > other projects to also accept pull requests. This means my
> > identity.kde.org
> > account is no longer enough to maintain a KDE project.
> 
> This is the concern I understand.
> Some projects accepting such requests (whatever that means, still unclear on
> that) could easily create the expectation that all projects do.
> 
> > Pullrequests in the github are more than a way to submit a patch. It's
> > also
> > code review. At the point where this would happen, part of the community
> > is
> > excluded from participating in the code review process. Even more part of
> > our code actually moves to github. Previous versions of the patch are then
> > only available through github infrastructure.
> 
> I am not quite sure I understand this concern.
> The patch would still go through review at KDE. Even with no github at all a
> patch could have been through several revisions before being submitted. The
> review always deals with the "final" submission (obviously not final if
> things need to be changed).

KDE does not have mandatory code review. I have to admit that I as a 
maintainer have quite often pushed commits directly which went to me by mail 
because I then reviewed them before pushing. Why uploading just to press 
shipit?

My fear here is that if we allow pull request, people will also start to use 
them for code review at which point we have split the development team in 
those doing code review through reviewboard and those through github.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Bikeshedding - our strength apparently *sigh*

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:04:46 PM CEST Vishesh Handa wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> 
wrote:
> >> When/If that actually happens, you can bring it up and then we can
> >> deal with it. Dealing in extreme What-Ifs does not help this
> >> discussion.
> > 
> > yeah well, we also said github is only a mirror and pull requests are a
> > non- issue. Sorry but I at the moment have lost all trust.
> 
> Just because some people agreed to a read-only mirror that does not
> mean everyone did.

Well we agreed on something. As I have already said: I feel quite fooled by 
some members of the KDE community.

> 
> > Apart from that: then it's too late. Those who argue now for the pull
> > requests will argue for it.
> 
> Please don't act as though you know what is going to happen. You don't
> and you have no evidence to claim anything like this.

Should we bet?

> 
> > If I want to keep the development on free infrastructure I
> > must oppose before we start using non-free infrastructure - and please
> > don't come now with Google+.
> 
> Alright. Lets talk about Windows and Android then? You haven't
> answered that part of my email.

Because I honestly think that the comparison with Windows and Android matters. 
It's a completely different topic, and I don't want to derail into that 
discussion.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 2:14:00 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 18 September 2015 at 14:00, Ben Cooksley  wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek  
wrote:
> >> On 18 September 2015 at 13:42, Boudhayan Gupta  wrote:
> >>> Ladies and gentlemen, as you read this mail github.com/kde is being
> >>> populated by the initial sync of all repositories.
> >>> 
> >>> Maybe someone should make a public announcement?
> >>> 
> >>> Shout out to Ben, he truly is a superhero.
> >> 
> >> Thanks a lot!
> >> Is it possible to enable Issues support for a given project? (as I
> >> said needed by the bountysource infra at least)
> > 
> > From what I saw of the above consensus, issues and pull requests would
> > be disabled as those should go through our usual infrastructure
> > (todo.kde.org / bugs.kde.org / reviewboard.kde.org) - if there is a
> > post otherwise i'd be happy to be pointed to it though?
> 
> I see what you mean but there was no discussion about this matter in
> this thread at least.
> 
> For code I maintain I welcome:
> - any form of patches even if they come via pull requests, just like
> for me emailed patches are also better than no patches
> - any form of donations for features -> for that Issues are needed
> 
> It's possible to fork these mirrors to get this support and I am doing
> this now for a test in case of kreport.git.
> https://github.com/staniek/kreport-1
> 
> But again, please consider this as less controlled/predictable
> activity - that forking will happen anyway, as this is the value of
> github-based collaboration, and (IMHO) sense of our existence on
> github.

We must be extremely careful to not proprietarize our development 
infrastructure. Accepting the one pull request is no problem, but once all 
development happens through pull request, we have moved our development 
infrastructure to a proprietary platform and run in a vendor-lock-in 
situation.

If you want to accept pull requests think about what it means. This is quite 
different to mail: mail is not a single vendor lock-in and also not 
proprietary.

My suggestion is that it's ok to accept pull request from new contributors, 
but at the same time tell them how to contribute in future. That it's an 
exception and not the rule.

I also suggest that we update our README(.md) files and point out how to 
contribute.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 1:53:36 PM CEST David Edmundson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>
> 
> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 18, 2015 2:14:00 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > On 18 September 2015 at 14:00, Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek <stan...@kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > >> On 18 September 2015 at 13:42, Boudhayan Gupta <bgu...@kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > >>> Ladies and gentlemen, as you read this mail github.com/kde is being
> > > >>> populated by the initial sync of all repositories.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Maybe someone should make a public announcement?
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Shout out to Ben, he truly is a superhero.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Thanks a lot!
> > > >> Is it possible to enable Issues support for a given project? (as I
> > > >> said needed by the bountysource infra at least)
> > > > 
> > > > From what I saw of the above consensus, issues and pull requests would
> > > > be disabled as those should go through our usual infrastructure
> > > > (todo.kde.org / bugs.kde.org / reviewboard.kde.org) - if there is a
> > > > post otherwise i'd be happy to be pointed to it though?
> > > 
> > > I see what you mean but there was no discussion about this matter in
> > > this thread at least.
> > > 
> > > For code I maintain I welcome:
> > > - any form of patches even if they come via pull requests, just like
> > > for me emailed patches are also better than no patches
> > > - any form of donations for features -> for that Issues are needed
> > > 
> > > It's possible to fork these mirrors to get this support and I am doing
> > > this now for a test in case of kreport.git.
> > > https://github.com/staniek/kreport-1
> > > 
> > > But again, please consider this as less controlled/predictable
> > > activity - that forking will happen anyway, as this is the value of
> > > github-based collaboration, and (IMHO) sense of our existence on
> > > github.
> > 
> > Issues can are disabled
> 
> Pull requests we can't disable.
> However I've found this bot: http://nopullrequests.com/
> 
> that gets pull requests then automatically repsonds closing it.
> Might be worth us doing, saying "go to reviewboard.kde.org"

Oh I think we should add that bot. I thought pull-requests are disabled by 
default. I certainly don't want to check all the repos I maintain for pull-
requests.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> Just as a reminder
> 
> > We must be extremely careful to not proprietarize our development
> > infrastructure. Accepting the one pull request is no problem, but once all
> > development happens through pull request, we have moved our development
> > infrastructure to a proprietary platform and run in a vendor-lock-in
> > situation.
> > 
> > If you want to accept pull requests think about what it means. This is
> > quite
> > different to mail: mail is not a single vendor lock-in and also not
> > proprietary.
> > 
> > My suggestion is that it's ok to accept pull request from new
> > contributors,
> > but at the same time tell them how to contribute in future. That it's an
> > exception and not the rule.
> > 
> > I also suggest that we update our README(.md) files and point out how to
> > contribute.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> > ___
> > kde-community mailing list
> > kde-community@kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
> 
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org>
> 
> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 18, 2015 2:14:00 PM CEST Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > > On 18 September 2015 at 14:00, Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Jaroslaw Staniek <stan...@kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > >> On 18 September 2015 at 13:42, Boudhayan Gupta <bgu...@kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > >>> Ladies and gentlemen, as you read this mail github.com/kde is being
> > > >>> populated by the initial sync of all repositories.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Maybe someone should make a public announcement?
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Shout 

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 11:21:34 PM CEST Vishesh Handa wrote:
> Ping?
> 
> What's the status of this? I have a copy of Baloo on github, and I
> have been thinking of creating a "KDE Baloo" organization (or KDE) so
> that it is not under my name. I would obviously prefer an official
> mirror instead of me updating it manually.

There seems to be consensus on we want it, but nobody started to do work on 
it. Maybe you want to get it going? Instead of doing "KDE Baloo" taking "KDE 
community" (or something like that)?

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 08:57:24 AM Martin Sandsmark wrote:
 Hi!
 
 Just to preface this a bit; I argued pretty vehemently against doing this
 some time ago on IRC (like, years ago I think), so I hate myself a bit for
 agreeing with you here.

I know how you feel and I hate myself also for having written the mail in the 
first place :-(

 
 On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 07:46:44AM +0200, Martin Graesslin wrote:
  Whether we like it or not, github has become a place to look for free
  software nowadays and if you are not on github your software just doesn't
  exist. Given that we can say KDE doesn't produce source code because we
  are not on github.
 I still don't like the Github UI personally, and I think the behavior it
 encourages wrt. pull requests and whatnot is bad, but I agree with you that
 open source code (whether it is free software isn't important in this
 context) doesn't really exist for a growing amount of developers if it
 isn't on github.
 
 I guess you could say that Github is the biggest marketing platform for open
 source today.
 
  I suggest that we:
  * introduce an official mirror for all KDE repositories on github
  * replace all existing (non-official) clones
  * disallow pull-requests on github to not replace our development model by
  a proprietary platform.
 
 I agree with this, and fwiw for the last point I find the way pull requests
 are done on Github to be bad in general (for once I agree with Linux
 Torvalds).
 
 We also need to ensure that the README files for as many as possible of the
 projects we push to Github have a short but prominent notice about where and
 how people can send patches for review.
 
 As for some more practical aspects, I think it makes sense to contact this
 person and ask politely if we could have the name: https://github.com/kde


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 08:55:57 AM Jos van den Oever wrote:
 On Monday 17 August 2015 07:46:44 Martin Graesslin wrote:
  Hi community,
  
  over the last months I observed the following:
  * people not finding our git repositories
 
 Searching on ixquick:
 'calligra git' https://community.kde.org/Calligra/Git
 'kde git' https://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/GitKdeOrgManual
 'kwin git' https://github.com/faho/kwin-tiling
 'plasma git' https://community.kde.org/Plasma/Active/Development
 
 Searching on Google:
 'calligra git' https://community.kde.org/Calligra/Building/2
 'kde git' https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Git
 'kwin git'
 http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2014/04/kwin-moved-to-an-own-reposito
 ry/ 'plasma git' - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/plasma-desktop-git/
 
 On google the highest link to github was in position 4. Not too bad.
 
 There was no link to https://projects.kde.org/ or https://quickgit.kde.org/
 
 What part of the KDE infrastructures can be fixed to make the repositories
 easier to find?
 
  * people being surprised that our code is not on github
 
 This is good moment to educate them on the ideals of KDE.

Yes certainly, I start with lecturing a potential new contributor /sarcasm 
No, I say sorry that our code is so difficult to find.

 
  * some projects starting to use github in addition to our own
  infrastructure
 We have a manifesto that disallows this.

Yes we have. Do you want to enforce it in this point and kick out projects 
which just won the akademy award, because they are interested in more 
contributors?

The manifesto is there to guide us, but it's not put in stone to not allow to 
change to reality.

 
  Whether we like it or not, github has become a place to look for free
  software nowadays and if you are not on github your software just doesn't
  exist. Given that we can say KDE doesn't produce source code because we
  are
  not on github.
 
 And Android has become the only phone OS. Windows the only PC os. Microsoft
 Office is the only office suite. Google is the only search engine. Chrome is
 the only browser. Facebook is the only way for communicating with other
 humans (even if they are in view).

And in all cases we integrate with those examples:
* we have software for Android
* we have software for Microsoft Windows
* We have google as default search engine
* We used to have a bridge to Facebook chat system

So apparently we do integrate with proprietary services without losing our 
identity. So I fail to see your point here.

 
  Other projects have an official mirror (see e.g. [1]) which solves the
  three points I have listed above.
  
  I suggest that we:
  * introduce an official mirror for all KDE repositories on github
  * replace all existing (non-official) clones
  * disallow pull-requests on github to not replace our development model by
  a proprietary platform.
  
  Comments?
 
 GitHub might be over the top of its popularity. If KDE moves to GitHub, we
 will make our hits in search engines point to GitHub more often.

I am not suggesting to moving to github.  I'm suggesting to setup an 
official mirror.

 I've started using GitLab for repositories that I have to collaborate on
 with non-KDE people. The reason for this is that GitLab allows moving to
 servers that are under my control. There are other GitHub alternative
 coming up such as Gogs.

The point why I wrote the mail is that people expect things to be on github. 
All these alternatives are great but miss the one point: they are not github. 
And for what is worth: let's also get official mirrors on those 
infrastructure.

 
 If KDE mirrors to GitHub but not to the alternatives, KDE is giving GitHub
 an advantage over the open competition.

yes, let's do that, too.

 
 If KDE mirrors to GitHub, it should keep a policy of never linking to
 GitHub. The route from GitHub to KDE should be only one direction. In
 practice people will start pointing to GitHub instead of

fully agree, though it might be difficult in practice. E.g. if we have this 
setup I would do a post that KWin is now on github and link it. So maybe just 
in official documentation.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Official KDE mirror on github

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 10:10:17 AM Jos van den Oever wrote:
 On Monday 17 August 2015 09:16:02 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
  On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:35:09PM +0530, Bhushan Shah wrote:
   In my opinion first two are too wrong arguments to begin with.. If our
   repositories can not be found from outside then it requires
   improvement from our side. Putting source code on Github is not going
   to solve this problem.
  
  I don't think improving discoverability of our own infrastructure and
  putting mirrors of our code on Github are mutually exclusive. I think both
  will improve our visibility so to speak.
  
   Even if people will use github to search projects eventually they will
   have
   to use our infrastructure to contribute.
  
  In my opinion all of our projects should have a short description about
  how
  and where to send us their patches, even if we don't push things to
  Github.
  If we ensure that our git repositories can be found via search engines
  people still need to know how to contribute.
 
 Agree. This is a good idea regardless of mirroring on GitHub.
 
 A mandatory preamble in the README.md for each KDE project could go
 something like this:
 
 ==
 $name is a [KDE](https://www.kde.org/) project. The source code for $name
 can be found at [$git.kde.org/$name](https://$git.kde.org/$name). KDE
 welcomes you to [join KDE](https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved) and
 contribute to $name. You can report [issues and wishes]($git.kde.org/$name]
 (https://$git.kde.org/$name).
 img style=float: right; src=images/kdelogo.png alt=KDE logo/
 ==
 
 In this way, even if our repos are not completely indexed, the pagerank will
 increase a lot.

and is also something we could actually install with the software.

 
  And I think lowering the threshold for people to contribute in general is
  also something that should be done (and is being worked on already), and
  is
  a bit separate from this thing about mirroring stuff on Github.
  
   And about people being surprised that our code is not on Github, it is
   really clear that Github is _not_ standard place to get open source
   software.
  
  We might think so, but I don't think the rest of the world agrees.
  
   So, In short IMO there is nothing wrong with having Github mirror but
   that should be read-only and we should have real reason to do it.
   Currently sysadmins are reworking our git infrastructure. So lets wait
   little bit and see how it goes and then think of this.
  
  Yeah, I agree that the reworking of our own infrastructure should be
  prioritized, and we should disable the pull requests, bug reporting, etc.
  for everything we put on github.
 
 ___
 kde-community mailing list
 kde-community@kde.org
 https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Plasmoids and Apps - was - Re: Applications in KDE Generation 5

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday 16 January 2014 10:43:42 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
 On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 22:56:12 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
  El Dimecres, 15 de gener de 2014, a les 21:47:17, John Layt va escriure:
   Hi,
   
   * Do we need small utilities like KCalc as stand-alone apps, or do
   they belong in Workspaces, perhaps as Plasmoids?  Where do we draw the
   line between them?  And if there's both a Plasmoid and an App for
   something, which goes in the main release?
  
  Please don't force plasmoids down my throat.
 
 That is not a real threat, and phrasing it like it is a real threat feels
 extremely disrespectful. As the person who came up with and used to maintain
 this part of KDE, It makes me feel like you think I’ve been wandering
 around forcing people to do things they don’t want to and that makes me
 feel very uncomfortable.
Aaron, please assume good intentions. We all know Albert and we all know that 
his writing reads more harsh than he intents to. I do not see any of your 
conclusions in his writing. Let's stay positive in this discussion. If we 
start to fight with each other we won't find a solution.

Technically I agree with Albert's concern that Plasmoids as app replacements 
might not be a good idea. And I read the part in John's mail as rather an 
example than an actual suggestion.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Plasmoids and Apps - was - Re: Applications in KDE Generation 5

[Martin Graesslin]

On Thursday 16 January 2014 13:24:51 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
 Martin Graesslin wrote: 'We all know Albert and we all know that his writing
 reads more harsh than he intents to.’ IOW: it’s OK for Albert, because we
 all know he’s gruff and we should accommodate that. Others are routinely
 granted clemency for one reason or another, but should I not respond in
 perfect pitch to every email I get a different response.
Aaron, in my first reply to your sub-thread I asked you to assume good
intentions. My mail was obviously also intended to be a note to Albert that
his comment was way too harsh and out of line. There was no reason to turn
this so negative. I'm disappointed and it hurts to read that friends are
accusing me of having double standards.

--
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Translating the KDE manifesto

[Martin Graesslin]

On Wednesday 18 December 2013 23:50:03 Eike Hein wrote:
 Translations are always a bit 'risky' of course but I
 think in the spirit of inclusiveness and internationality
 they're a great idea.
I'm very unsure whether translation is a good idea at all. It's too easy to 
change the meaning and just think about how carefully we worded everything to 
make the meaning quite clear. It's possible that a certain wording will get a 
different meaning in another language just because it's not possible to 
translate correctly.

So overall from me a -1 for translations. If we want to do translations it has 
to be clear, that:
* it's a translation which is not binding. The English version of the 
manifesto matters
* we have very strong requirements on who is allowed to translate and a very 
strict peer review process for the translated document.
 
 I'd volunteer to work on a German translation over the
 holidays unless anyone else has a stronger urge. This
 kind of thing needs careful peer-review of course but I
 have a feeling we can scrounge up some other Germans in
 the KDE ranks :).
I volunteer to review a German translation.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Kubuntu documentation

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday 14 December 2013 01:54:50 Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
 Hi folks,
 
 Recently I wrote to the KDE Docs team and KDE WWW team asking for
 permission to put working copies of the Kubuntu documentation on the
 Userbase wiki. Albert raised an interesting objection, which I can
 only bring to this group for discussion.
 
 Kubuntu isn't a KDE project under the Manifesto definition. Even
 though our users are by definition KDE users, it is true that all KDE
 developers do not have write permissions to the Kubuntu codebase,
 since our packages are hosted on Canonical servers.
I don't see the problem at the moment. Albert, could you please elaborate on 
your reasoning. For me it looks like KDE would just provide some more source 
code which can be packaged by the distribution. That our repositories are 
used by distributions has always been the case and is also encouraged.

Cheers
Martin

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

Re: [kde-community] Kubuntu documentation

[Martin Graesslin]

On Saturday 14 December 2013 12:13:10 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
 El Dissabte, 14 de desembre de 2013, a les 11:35:23, Martin Graesslin va
 
 escriure:
  On Saturday 14 December 2013 01:54:50 Valorie Zimmerman wrote:
   Hi folks,
   
   Recently I wrote to the KDE Docs team and KDE WWW team asking for
   permission to put working copies of the Kubuntu documentation on the
   Userbase wiki. Albert raised an interesting objection, which I can
   only bring to this group for discussion.
   
   Kubuntu isn't a KDE project under the Manifesto definition. Even
   though our users are by definition KDE users, it is true that all KDE
   developers do not have write permissions to the Kubuntu codebase,
   since our packages are hosted on Canonical servers.
  
  I don't see the problem at the moment. Albert, could you please elaborate
  on your reasoning. For me it looks like KDE would just provide some more
  source code which can be packaged by the distribution.
 
 Just that this source code will be distribution specific.
where's the difference to 
https://projects.kde.org/projects/extragear/sysadmin/muon or all the *suse 
branches in svn/work?

I don't know the Kubuntu documentation, but apart from installation there 
should not be much which is Kubuntu specific. If it's about the applications it 
should be merged with the upstream documentation in my opinion. Better docs 
for everyone :-) I just had a short look at http://docs.kubuntu.org and I'm 
quite sure that it could be reworked to not be Kubuntu specific. E.g. the 
Getting Involved could be rewritten to be generic for all distributions by 
having multiple sections:
* Kubuntu
* openSUSE
* Arch
* ...

Kubuntu could then just extract the relevant part for their documentation. Or 
am I missing something?

Cheers
Martin
 
 You can see the original thread at
 http://lists.kde.org/?t=13865491802r=1w=2
 
 Cheers,
   Albert
 
  That our
  repositories are used by distributions has always been the case and is
  also
  encouraged.
  
  Cheers
  Martin
 
 ___
 kde-community mailing list
 kde-community@kde.org
 https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community