Hello,
On Sunday, 2 July 2017 13:52:48 CEST Sandro Knauß wrote:
> > 2) the third one (libkdepim) I'm forbidden to link against since it's
> > private API to kdepim (turned into a dumping ground apparently...).
> >
> > Obviously, as soon as libkdepim is cleaned up (which I regularly hear it's
> > supposed to happen) and features are moved in proper frameworks I'll drop
> > it from the 3rdparty folder. Didn't happen yet...
>
> Well kdepim is a open group. kdepim is not giving API stability because, we
> need space to cleanup, but the team is not very big, so it takes time.
I think I know that quite well.
> But I don't see why you are not just link against the relevant parts of
> kdepim and remove the copy. And than tell kdepim that you are using these
> files, so the team can take that into account when touching the files.
As I mentioned earlier I don't because that is private API meant only for
consumption within kdepim applications. Depending on such API is wrong.
> Additionally you can add tests and cleanup the code yourself.
That would be assuming I have the bandwidth for that: I don't.
> As fallback you can still copy the files as temporally solution in future,
> if things break.
>
> The relevant point for me is that copies of code have a slash back,
> sometimes fast sometimes it takes much time.
Sure, I'm not in love with the current situation either.
> But what I can say from my work in Debian is that often Debian needs to
> coordinate the discussion to get rid of copies, that could have been avoided
> if the different projects had been talking directly with each other.
>
> For me the existence of those copies and no discussions with kdepim are a
> -1 for moving it out of Review.
You're assuming this wasn't discussed previously. It's been discussed a long
time ago in person. It's not like no one in kdepim knew about it.
Regards.
--
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net
KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
