On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 09:57:30PM +0100, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > reverting is not going to happen at this point.
Fair point, as it now seems to both have maintainers aware of its bugzilla component and is getting its bugs fixed. I really like the new screenlocker, both the architecture (one less reason for me to keep KRunner running), and because I think QML is a good fit for a screen locker (I've already made a couple of "cute" screen hacks in QML that I planned on using to replace the XScreensaver hacks), I just didn't want us to ship something we weren't able to finish in time. > * CC multiple lists rather than send it to the relevant one Because I wasn't sure which one was the relevant one. ksmserver is a kde-core-devel-thing (or so I thought), but plasma-bugs was the default assignee for bugs (but noone seemed to read them). > * assume the worst and make assertions based on that (e.g. "there are open > bug > reports" == "there is no maintainer") I didn't assume anything. I based my conclusion on several facts. * The first one was that there wasn't really any development on it (as I said, maybe 5-6 real commits in december, leading up to its first release?). * The second one was that there was no person as default assignee in bugzilla, only the generic plasma-bugs list (which noone seems to follow? this is also an issue, though). * The third was that I was pretty much told so on IRC. > * put reversion as one of the only (if not the only) semi-realistic option > offered. starting with a worst case, but probably low effort, solution is a > good > way to simultaneously lower morale ("let's throw your effort out") and feed > laziness ("we can throw it out, so you don't need to work on it more"). it > makes us prone to take the worst case solution rather than focus on > improvement. Wait, what? You don't think "I can fix this if I can get some help" is a realistic option? The revert was only a suggestion as a last-ditch option in case we couldn't get it in shape for release. > * spend more words on finding someone to accept responsibility ("where's the > maintainer") than defining problem & solution. iow, we focus on the person > rather than the product. Because it _needs_ a maintainer. That is more important than a short-term fix-up for release in KDE 4.10 (which I probably could have done myself), and I think you actually agree with me on that. Just fixing enough outstanding bugs for it to get released in KDE 4.10, and then let it rot again is not a good solution at all. It was not meant as finger pointing, more "we need someone to take care of this in the long term". > * assumptions and conclusions about reactions that have not happened yet > ("QML > == regressions and brokenness"). What do you think people are going to think, then, when we ship something new with _no_ new features and several very visible (though not necessarily major) regressions, and noone replying in bug reports? And it's not an assumption at all, I have seen it happen already in the various discussions about the pre-releases (see for example the discussion threads about the releases on reddit.com/r/{linux,kde}. So about making assumptions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PivWY9wn5ps > * do it all at the 11th hour. one might think our development cycle consists > of a few people working for months on as much as they can and then people > jumping in at the last minute with Big Massive Problems They Finally Decide > To > Raise(tm). it's almost like we don't have a feature freeze and stabilization > period that people participate in. Hey, these issues were raised as early as november, and have been steadily increasing since. I myself didn't notice that none of them were getting fixed until yesterday, and I wrote this mail as soon as I could. I don't usually do work on workspace, but I wanted to see if I could fix the regressions that affected me, and noticed that none of the reported regressions had gotten any attention at all. > i also have the suspicion that if this was being dealt with in person, it > would have been said differently. somehow, though, because its an email and > people aren't actually looking each other in the eye this is what we get. > second time this week. meh. Yeah, you'll have to manage with a virtual hug for now: *hug*. > besides the brokenness of the approach, i'll let everyone in on what is > probably not a big secret: for the first time since 4.0, there was > essentially > zero project management in the release cycle for the workspaces codebase. I for one did not know, the danger of living in our own little submodule bubbles, I guess. > this came about after a group of people requested it be that way; despite > attempts at reasoning it through with them they maintained that position. i'm > hoping the people involved will realize just how untenable that position is > now. where i failed with reason, i hope that experience will be an effective > teacher. > let's make this *not* the future of KDE development. Agreed. -- Martin Sandsmark Raiser of the Ruckus _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel