On Dienstag, 3. Dezember 2024 01:17:41 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Justin Zobel wrote: > I'm a bit frustrated by our new application development pipeline. > > I see applications appear on apps.kde.org and in official namespaces on > GitLab before they have passed KDE Review.
In my opinion you are conflating two completely different things. Let's discuss them separately. Let's start with apps.kde.org. > I feel this is falsely advertising to the world that the app is ready > for use. I agree that this could be improved. A possible solution would be to use the brand-new lifecycle attribute in repo-metadata to clearly mark apps that haven't passed KDE Review as beta. I don't think that hiding them from apps.kde.org is a fair solution. On the contrary, I think having beta apps on apps.kde.org could possibly attract the attention of other developers who'd be interested in working on a new app and of beta users who'd be interested in giving the app a try. The possibility to get early feedback is a key value of FOSS. "Release early. Release often." https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle clearly documents what differentiates playground projects from reviewed projects (although this wiki page needs to be updated to mention the new lifecycle attribute instead of the old projectpath attribute). I think it's just a matter of making this information more visible to avoid wrong expectations. > The button on apps.kde.org that says 'Install on Linux' takes me to > Discover and then tells me that the app was not found in any software > repositories. Is "passing KDE Review" really connected in any way to "packaged by some distro"? I guess that's a question only distro packagers can answer. > It also tells me to report this to my distribution which can lead to > noise on distro bug trackers. It can also lead to noise on the KDE bug > tracker because a user wants to install the application but can't. Discover probably shouldn't do this for beta apps. I have no idea how the beta state could be communicated to Discover. Is there something suitable in AppStream? I didn't see something obvious; we could probably use tags. To avoid duplicate information this should somehow be added automatically based on the lifecyle attribute in repo-metadata. Now GitLab namespaces > I think keeping applications in user namespaces until it has passed KDE > Review would solve both of these problems. I think keeping applications in user namespaces until they have passed KDE Review is an excellent way to hide them from potential co-contributors. Maybe it's just me because I don't read blogs, follow people on any s.m. and don't scour GitLab user namespaces for interesting projects, but I have never stumbled accidentally over an interesting project hidden in a user namespace. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
