Hey Everyone,
Thanks for all the input. Sorry I've been out for a few days, my wife
and I were busy and welcomed into our life our baby girl Isla.
I would like to propose the following based on all of the feedback and
my own thoughts:
- Main page of apps.kde.org it will by default only show apps that are
active. This data will come from the lifecycle status in repo metadata.
- A filter on the front page of apps.kde.org with tickboxes: Status: [x]
Active [ ] Beta [ ] Archived(Unmaintained)
- On each app page it will show the status of the app: Actively
Developed, Beta or Archived so users know what to expect if they do try it.
- Add appstream metadata file location to the repo metadata. For example
org.kde.kate: utilities/kate/org.kde.kate.appdata.xml
- Encourage developers to use our mailing lists or KDE Discuss to
announce the new app they're working on and intending to be part of the
KDE umbrella.
Specific replies:
> I'll also note that user namespaces are not writable to all developers
Anyone can still fork pubic repositories if they wish to contribute.
> Probably I'm one of the reasons this discussion started.
This did prompt the discussion but it wasn't the trigger, I had been
thinking about this for a while.
Regards,
Justin
On 9/12/24 01:50, Phu Hung Nguyen wrote:
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 12:36:26 +0100
From: Albert Astals Cid
To: Ben Cooksley
Cc:kde-devel@kde.org
Subject: Re: New Application Status
Message-ID: <9526941.xt29fcdmcD@xps15>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
El divendres, 6 de desembre del 2024, a les 19:27:32 (Hora estàndard del
Centre d’Europa), Ben Cooksley va escriure:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 9:37 AM Albert Astals Cid 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?
Clearly not on the front page, probably not on category lists though (Maybe
having their own "unmaintained category" in case people want to adopt them?)
We are already having a "Unmaintained" category page,
https://apps.kde.org/categories/unmaintained/ or
https://apps.kde.org/unmaintained/. This isn't linked to from the page
of categories https://apps.kde.org/categories/, it's only linked to
from pages of unmaintained apps, e.g. https://apps.kde.org/choqok/
For apps that don't have their artifacts and repos available anymore,
we store their appdata and desktop files inside the repo
https://invent.kde.org/websites/apps-kde-org/-/tree/master/appdata-extractor/appdata-unmaintained?ref_type=heads
