Re: [Opensync-devel] kitchensync

[Michael B. <mb...@de...>]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 07:53:31AM -0700, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
> --- On Fri, 11/5/10, Harald Jenny <ha...@a-...> wrote:> 
> > There were few discussions about the future of opensync and about
> > kitchensync as part of kde4. Quentin got kitchensync into kde-dev,
> > so if I'm not wrong it is in kde already, but somewhere in dev.
> 
> So the main point should be to make them move it into normal kde again
> :-).

If kitchensync is a seperate source tarball, that would mean getting
fixes into Debian would be much easier, as a kdepim upload is a huge
task.  I wanted to get some of the Mandriva fixes into kitchensync for
Debian lenny. but the KDE maintainers ignored them for kdepim, for
example.

> I'm not sure what decision was made about opensync. Opensync and
> plugins should move accordingly. We are talking here about v0.40

One thing we might want to reconsider is on focusing on 0.40 as the next
stable release.  With 0.39 out a long time ago and a lot of fixes (and a
working akonadi plugin, yay!), I think another development release
should be made ASAP.

Now, how to version it? 0.39.1 looks weird.  Three options:

1. Use 0.50 and aim for 0.60 as the next stable relase (a renamed 0.40).

2. Use 0.40 and just don't declare it stable, 1.0 will be the next
stable release.

3. Use 0.40alpah1, 0.40alpha2, 0.40beta1, 0.40rc1 and so forth.

Just saying "the next release will be 0.40, and it will be stable" is
problematic, as that means hacking on trunk without much user feedback
and a pressure to get it right and all bugs resolved which might take
another couple of years.

Finally, let me reiterate something on the release: Either release the
core opensync (and formats/bindings) first and announce a plugin relase
a month (or so) later or let plugins catch up with the core release and
release later (as the same version).  Or even better, do both.

This would make it easier for plugin authors to shift their focus
towards opensync when it's needed (i.e. when all the new APIs have to be
ported to).

> And I guess that coordinating the whole thing with the responsible
> Debian people before doing anything is a good idea.

Well, that is me for the most part, so should be doable.

> Again, I want to know what are the official plans for Opensync and
> who's in charge with what. 

It's somewhat clear who is in charge of which plugin, but who has the
say on release management is much less clear; it was Daniel Gollub for
the last bunch of releases, but I am not sure he still steering the
project to this end?


Michael