[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-community
Subject:    Re: [kde-community] Non Api-stable libraries/frameworks - Re: Applications in KDE Generation 5
From:       Kevin Ottens <ervin () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-01-16 13:27:43
Message-ID: 1629628.0CTQq7hVcA () wintermute
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 16 January 2014 12:16:48 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:00:36 Kevin Krammer wrote:
> > On Thursday, 2014-01-16, 01:33:34, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > El Dimecres, 15 de gener de 2014, a les 21:47:17, John Layt va escriure:
> > > > * Application domain-specific libraries such as libkipi or libkcddb
> > > > may now be better organised under Frameworks rather than their
> > > > modules, where they could gain a wider user base and a clearer
> > > > maintenance viability.  Can we have a Frameworks category for non-api
> > > > stable libraries?
> > > 
> > > I am not sure I would call it "Frameworks", but yes, that makes total
> > > sense, for example at the moment our mobipocket library just uses QtCore
> > > and QtGui but since it's using all the KDE cmake stuff it's not that
> > > easy
> > > to re-use "from the outside".
> > 
> > I also think it is important to not call those "Frameworks", because it
> > dilutes the assumption we want developers to make about Frameworks, e.g.
> > stable, maintained, scheduled releases, etc.
> 
> This is a very important point. We've had some discussions during the Plasma
> sprint (which I'm currently attending), and "make it a Framework" was
> offered as a solution to scope some libraries. While I think that should in
> principle be possible, separate libraries do not automatically become
> frameworks.
> 
> The fact that they're split and less interdependent makes it easier to have
> a bigger set of libraries, but it's really important that we only ship
> libraries that satisfy a certain set of qualities, such as API and ABI
> stability, complete documentation, unit-testing, etc. Otherwise, our newly
> created "Frameworks brand" will quickly lose its meaning and value, and
> worse, devalue other, high-quality libraries' reputations. Strong
> requirements are a good thing here.

That's what this page is for:
http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies

Still incomplete, but I expect the quality threshold to raise with time.

Cheers.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kde-community mailing list
kde-community@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]