On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:37 AM Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote:
> El dijous, 5 de desembre del 2024, a les 13:57:26 (Hora estàndard del > Centre > d’Europa), Ingo Klöcker va escriure: > > On Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2024 10:27:13 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Ben > > > > Cooksley wrote: > > > Trying to coming full circle on this here, but in summary sounds like > > > there > > > are a couple of things to change going forward: > > > > > > * For apps.kde.org, we should flag applications in accordance with > their > > > Lifecycle status in the metadata (ie. unmaintained and those yet to > pass > > > KDE Review should be flagged in some form or another) > > > > Yes. For beta apps. I'd say for unmaintained apps there shouldn't be a > page > > on apps.kde.org. Given that there won't be build artifacts for > unmaintained > > apps (at least not for long) there is anyway no AppStream data for > creating > > such a page. > > In my opinion once a page exists it needs to exist forever. > > Imagine Okular goes unmaintained, I don't want the lots of pages pointing > to > https://apps.kde.org/okular/ to suddenly point to a 404 > > I want to see a page that says "This is unmaintained" but still has the > old > contents. > Continuing to have pages for unmaintained applications sounds okay, subject to appstream metadata being available (not a given as we source them from CI artifacts right now). We probably wouldn't want to list unmaintained applications on say the front page of apps.kde.org or the category lists though? > > Cheers, > Albert > Cheers, Ben > > > > > > * We should institute tighter controls regarding releases of > applications > > > and ensuring projects pass KDE Review first > > > > Make that "stable releases". For good reasons our lifecycle policy > > explicitly allows unstable releases for Playground projects (but not for > > incubated projects). > > > > Regards, > > Ingo > > > > >
