Re: [Opensync-devel] kitchensync

[deloptes <del...@ya...>]

Michael Banck wrote:

> 
> 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 don't know who's maintaining it at the moment except Quentin, so he'll
probably have to say himself what is he situation with kitchensync.

> 
>> 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.

AFAIK opensync was telling the same. this convinced me to work on
akonadi-sync

> 
> 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.

my impression too

> 
> 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.

the last option would be the best, but from my experience here I don't think 
you can expect this (plugin to be considered stable with library)
better release core and then whatever plugin (as the same version).

> 
> 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.

Thanks for knowing. I can not say anything about the plans of the opensync
team. I just want to have a syncing solution when I move to kde4.

> 
>> 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?
> 

I also have this impression but I'm quite new to this group.