[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-frameworks-devel
Subject: Re: KPeople part of KDE Frameworks
From: Martin Klapetek <martin.klapetek () gmail ! com>
Date: 2015-03-02 19:49:45
Message-ID: CAPLgePp5JeXnkELtUOzGBOc9=eiH8NtR_GfpO-u0e6H3M8eVfA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 01:47:00, Martin Klapetek va escriure:
> > I would just like to point out that the review period of KPeople
> > is over and all the associated moves are in order, are they not?
> > What exactly is "enormously rushed" when the review period
> > is over and moves are rightfully requested? Perhaps that should
> > have been said in either of the "please review this proposal" emails
> > before, not after.
> >
> > KDE Telepathy also already has a dependency on KPeople
> > since ever, so there's no new dependency added. It's just being
> > moved from kdereview to frameworks. Is that a dependency
> > freeze violation? I read "it is not allowed to add new dependencies"
> > in the release schedule page. That is not what is happening.
> >
> > The only rush is to get KPeople tarball released a bit sooner so
> > that it can be there for KDE Applications Beta 1. That is all.
> > And that tarball could just as well be made from kdereview.
>
> We have some rules, one of them is that when we release a tarball, it must
> be
> able to be compiled against other released tarballs. I hope that's not
> hard to
> agree on.
>
> So we need the KPeople tarball before KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is out.
>
> Now KPeople wants to be a framework and thus is not on the same relase
> schedule as KDE Applications 15.04.
>
> So to achieve the "tarballs have to compile against released tarballs"
> KPeople
> should have been part of the past release, not of Frameworks release that
> is
> after KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is released.
>
> Thus KPeople was late and we had to rush it a bit.
>
Yes, but the only thing "rushed" is the release of KPeople tarball about 8
days sooner.
Everything else is pretty much in order, so there's definitely not an
"enormous rush"
to things and not at all a freeze violation.
> > (and yes I'm a bit annoyed by all this crap I'm getting for this
> > only now and not a month before when was the right time)
>
> I'm sorry you're getting annoyed by people trying to make sure we
> collectively
> follow the few rules we have given ourselves.
>
No, I'm annoyed by the fact that all I hear is "this is rush rush rush rush
mess mess mess"
and only _after_ all the moves have had happened. That's why there is the
review period.
And I started it since beginning of February. Nobody in the review periods
asked the
right questions, nobody really objected or disagreed to anything and
suddenly it's all rush
and mess while it's just one single tarball in question and already with a
solution.
Makes me think that maybe the review process does not work that well...
If you don't agree with the rules you're more than welcome to propose
> improvements or modifications, maybe that way we will get more people
> caring
> and following them.
>
I never said anything about not agreeing with the rules (and it's really
not about the rules).
Cheers
--
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 \
at 8:16 PM, Albert Astals Cid <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aacid@kde.org" \
target="_blank">aacid@kde.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">El Dilluns, 2 de març de 2015, a les 01:47:00, Martin \
Klapetek va escriure:<br> <span class="">> I would just like to point out that the \
review period of KPeople<br> > is over and all the associated moves are in order, \
are they not?<br> > What exactly is "enormously rushed" when the review \
period<br> > is over and moves are rightfully requested? Perhaps that should<br>
> have been said in either of the "please review this proposal" \
emails<br> > before, not after.<br>
><br>
> KDE Telepathy also already has a dependency on KPeople<br>
> since ever, so there's no new dependency added. It's just being<br>
> moved from kdereview to frameworks. Is that a dependency<br>
> freeze violation? I read "it is not allowed to add new \
dependencies"<br> > in the release schedule page. That is not what is \
happening.<br> ><br>
> The only rush is to get KPeople tarball released a bit sooner so<br>
> that it can be there for KDE Applications Beta 1. That is all.<br>
> And that tarball could just as well be made from kdereview.<br>
<br>
</span>We have some rules, one of them is that when we release a tarball, it must \
be<br> able to be compiled against other released tarballs. I hope that's not \
hard to<br> agree on.<br>
<br>
So we need the KPeople tarball before KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is out.<br>
<br>
Now KPeople wants to be a framework and thus is not on the same relase<br>
schedule as KDE Applications 15.04.<br>
<br>
So to achieve the "tarballs have to compile against released tarballs" \
KPeople<br> should have been part of the past release, not of Frameworks release that \
is<br> after KDE Applications 15.04 Beta 1 is released.<br>
<br>
Thus KPeople was late and we had to rush it a \
bit.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but the only thing "rushed" \
is the release of KPeople tarball about 8 days sooner.</div><div>Everything else is \
pretty much in order, so there's definitely not an "enormous \
rush"</div><div>to things and not at all a freeze violation.</div><div> \
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""> > (and yes I'm a bit annoyed by all \
this crap I'm getting for this<br> > only now and not a month before when was \
the right time)<br> <br>
</span>I'm sorry you're getting annoyed by people trying to make sure we \
collectively<br> follow the few rules we have given \
ourselves.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I'm annoyed by the fact that \
all I hear is "this is rush rush rush rush mess mess mess"</div><div>and \
only _after_ all the moves have had happened. That's why there is the review \
period.</div><div>And I started it since beginning of February. Nobody in the review \
periods asked the</div><div>right questions, nobody really objected or disagreed to \
anything and suddenly it's all rush</div><div>and mess while it's just one \
single tarball in question and already with a \
solution.</div><div><br></div><div>Makes me think that maybe the review process does \
not work that well...<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> If you \
don't agree with the rules you're more than welcome to propose<br> \
improvements or modifications, maybe that way we will get more people caring<br> and \
following them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I never said anything about not \
agreeing with the rules (and it's really not about the \
rules).</div></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div>-- <br><div \
class="gmail_signature"><div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Martin Klapetek | \
KDE Developer</span></div></div> </div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list
Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic