[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: opensync downgrade to 0.22



Juha Tuomala wrote:
> You're referring to a problem that has been solved already.

It's not solved at all, KDE is stuck with no KitchenSync for the foreseeable
future. Removing stuff is not a solution.

> I gave an example of problem that could happen again.

Sure, it could happen again if people are stupid enough to still believe the
OpenSync project's promised release dates. Hopefully by now they know
better.

What you don't understand is that projects base their decisions on those
schedules, if you promise the moon and - at the promised time - deliver a
broken toy rocket which explodes as soon as you leave the atmosphere and is
missing half of its scientific instruments because they don't fit into the
new plugs you replaced the old ones with at a time at which the rocket
should have undergone its first tests, saying the moon rocket has been
delayed for some unknown time period, you WILL cause trouble. If the
OpenSync project had been upfront about the release date of 0.40 being
completely unknown, we'd have avoided some of the disasters. (0.36 probably
wouldn't have landed in Fedora either in that case, by the way.)

As for Fedora allegedly misleading projects into thinking 0.36 is stable,
while I doubt that's the case (which project are you talking about?),
that's solved anyway with the reversion to 0.22.

And FWIW, 0.36 had more apps and plugins working with it than 0.38 now does.
While I'm not familiar with the project's details, I do believe continuing
to break the API again instead of focusing on stabilizing 0.36 and
releasing a 0.40 based on it was about the most counterproductive move the
OpenSync project could have done. Is there any explanation of:
* what API changes (complete list) happened from 0.36 to 0.38,
* how to port apps and plugins (essential information for EVERY API change),
* WHY each post-0.36 API change was made and in particular
* why it absolutely had to be done before 0.40 when it was already running
late, rather than waiting for 0.50, 0.60 or whatever and finally
* its time impact on the 0.40 release and on getting apps/plugins ported?
A 0.40 release with an imperfect API would have been much better than none
at all. A really perfect API can't exist anyway.

        Kevin Kofler


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]