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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Re: KDM plans and lightDM
From:       Martin =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=E4=DFlin?= <mgraesslin () kde ! org>
Date:       2011-06-14 15:42:55
Message-ID: 3544706.GCHJfV9fSx () martin-desktop
[Download RAW message or body]


On Tuesday 14 June 2011 10:35:49 Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@kde.org> \
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:29:45 -0400, Shaun Reich <predator106@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > lightDM is also headed by my dear friend Canonical, as is clearly \
> > > seen.
> > 
> > Serious question: does anyone know if it requires Canonical's copyright
> > assignment to contribute to lightDM? If yes we can stop any further
> > discussion right here IMHO.
> 
> <apachelogger> robert_ancell: ahoy, is LightDM covered by the
> canonical contributor agreement?
> <robert_ancell> apachelogger, no
> <apachelogger> robert_ancell: ever going to be?
> <robert_ancell> apachelogger, no
> <robert_ancell> apachelogger, the greeter we develop will be afaik,
> but the rest of it not
Thanks for asking
> 
> > There are of course more issues to think about when considering using
> > something in our workspace that's developed by Canonical. What about we \
> > need changes Canonical does not like for what reason ever? Who of us \
> > can work with launchpad and bazaar? It's not the environment we are \
> > used to work with (same true for GNOME devs who want to participate in \
> >                 development). Personal
> > opinion: if Canonical wants other to use it as real cross-desktop, the \
> > first step should be move the code into freedesktop's git repository.
> 
> Indeed, issues worth considering.
> 
> I personally believe that "wanting to have something the other party
> does not" is really a global issue to all of free software. If I want
> Amarok to be able to remote control my space ship, but the Amarok
> developers do not, then there is little I can do about that as a
> non-contributor. Well, except for trying to convince them from the
> long-term advantage that such a feature would provide. If however I
> would want Phonon to have such a feature, it is more likely to get
> accepted as I am contributor to Phonon. I suppose it is a bit of a two
> class society for every project those-that-do-stuff vs.
> those-that-don't. While we should keep this in mind, I do not
> generally think that it is something to base decisions on. From the
> preemptive fear of not having 100% of control we'd otherwise have to
> clone every library we use. Well, actually even the OS. Hello KDEOS ;)
I don't think a comparison with libraries holds. We use libraries to build \
applications including  the DM. But the DM is part of our workspace \
offering. Without a DM we no longer provide a  complete workspace \
experience. So this is a completely different toppic and cannot be  \
compared with our policies for libraries and other OS integration.

To my knowledge this would also be a novelty that we replace a part of our \
workspace with  a 3rd party application.

As a workspace developer I consider the possibility to align all our \
workspace applications to  our needs as very important. Let's just consider \
we would want to start into an activity from  the DM... My arguments might \
seem far*fetched, but from an integrated workspace  development point of \
view, they aren't (at least IMHO).
> 
> I agree with your argument that code should be hosted in a FDO git
> repo, though I personally believe that Launchpad  is from a management
> perspective much easier to use for small projects as it puts every
> aspect of management into the hands of the project itself (commit
> access to repos, bug management etc. etc.). So, I can completely
> understand why one would be using LP even as a freedesktop.org
> project/thing, even if I find it not sensible at all to do this while
> using the freedesktop.org website, thus fragmenting one's project
> *shrug*.
> But generally speaking I also see this is as a non-issue in terms of
> the discussion at hand. The hosting system in particular is an
> implementation detail of forming grounds to collaborate on. Now, to
> ask anyone to use a ground we are familiar with (vs. one the other
> party is), we'd first have to know that we want to collaborate.
Agreed that this is only relevant for the case that we want to use lightDM.
> At any
> rate it probably does not make sense to take such things into account
> for any technical discussion as long as the system in use is easily
> accessible. Otherwise all of free software would be using Git, not
> because it is superior, but simply because everyone else does.
Actually I think from a workspace point of view it is a technical issue if \
one of our  applications is hosted in a version control system that is not \
git. Especially if it is a bizarre one  that is only used by one \
distribution. It means that not each workspace developer is able to  easily \
check out the sources and apply patches. So yes, sounds very much like an \
issue to  me.

Cheers
Martin
> 
> regards,
> Harald


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

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