Re: [Opensync-devel] Opensync-devel Digest, Vol 52, Issue 3

[Quentin D. <que...@gm...>]

On Saturday 06 November 2010 02:39:05 opensync-devel-
re...@li... wrote:
> Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 02:38:38 +0100
> From: deloptes <del...@ya...>
> Subject: Re: [Opensync-devel] kitchensync
> To: ope...@li...
> Message-ID: <ib2biu$849$1...@do...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 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.
It took over kitchensync from KDE-playground where it has been abandoned. This 
makes me currently the only official maintainer, Tobias König (the author) 
having left the project.

Kitchensync is currently:
- maintained in the KDE SVN in the playground repo. It should be moved to 
"normal" kdepim as soon as it is bugfree. However, I am a bit scared of 
remaining the only responsible for this project since my coding experience 
(and free time) is moderate. If the Debian guys (and KDE PIM guys) are behind 
kitchensync, too, there should very soon be a move to normal svn.

- present on kde-apps.org where the main public announcements are made. Users 
follow the development from there on. Release tarballs should also soon be 
available there. http://kde-
apps.org/content/show.php/KitchenSync?content=132538

- in opensync's wiki. I want to make an office kitchensync home/webpage on 
opensync's wiki (easily created and managed). 

There were plans to integrate kitchesync into kontact, officially part of the 
kde pim. I think the code should be quite ready for this, too.

> > 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
I fully agree, I joined the team to make the next release happen ASAP, too.

> >
> > 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.

We should use clear big steps in versioning to reflect the higher activity in 
the development. I would suggest 0.50, 0.60, ... with minor bugfix releases 
inbetween (0.50.1). Please no endless alpha1,2,...beta1,... stories, this 
confuses our users and make them impatient. We should bear in mind that 
opensync has lost the biggest part of its userbase and that efforts should be 
made to get them back. So clear versioning should be made for them, not for 
developers' fun.


> > 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).

I agree with previous comments. However, is OpenSync's API not supposed to 
become stable once for all?? Then the plugins will be developed to enhance the 
features or to update to the latest peer API (ex google calendar), but not to 
have a constant catch-up competition with OpenSync's API.
Since a good part of the plugins is now compatible with 0.40, I would suggest 
a opensync release (with format/bindings) jointly with a plugin pack that is 
ready for 0.40.


> >> 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. 
There should be clearer guidelines and roadmaps. Who is in charge of what? I 
even can't tell who is still actively contributing... 

kind regards,
Quentin