Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (9)
to SailfishOS by biketool - 8 hrs, 27 mins ago -
[Announce] coderus unrestricted system-ui (297)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by nieldk - 6 days, 13 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2009-08-16
, 14:17
|
|
Posts: 3,105 |
Thanked: 11,088 times |
Joined on Jul 2007
@ Mountain View (CA, USA)
|
#32
|
As other have kind of said before, Texrat's concerns are valid but I feel like we are working already on all of them in Fremantle:
- maemo.org Extras process considered the one and only valid for community apps to be recommended to real end users.
- Application Manager default UI can't even deal with .deb packages alone. Users willing to install them need to go through rootme and command line.
- Single entry point through extras-devel and con be only done by uploading the source code of the application and its dependencies.
- Packages go only through the extras-devel automatic filter if they reach a minimum of quality criteria: no missing dependencies or apps that don't install in extras-testing.
- Packages require human testing and approval to go through the extras-testing filter and reach Extras.
- Everybody be strict and recommend Extras and only Extras to pure end users. Big warning to those willing to get fresh meat in extras-testing. Everybody to understand that extras-devel is the wild wild west: don't complain if anything happens to your device, your family or yourself if you try it out.
- Only Extras apps are promoted in maemo.nokia.com.
- The rest of Nokia looks only at maemo.nokia.com when it comes to promote community apps or projects.
Considering all this... what else would you do to signal and evaluate the quality of community projects?
- maemo.org Extras process considered the one and only valid for community apps to be recommended to real end users.
- Application Manager default UI can't even deal with .deb packages alone. Users willing to install them need to go through rootme and command line.
- Single entry point through extras-devel and con be only done by uploading the source code of the application and its dependencies.
- Packages go only through the extras-devel automatic filter if they reach a minimum of quality criteria: no missing dependencies or apps that don't install in extras-testing.
- Packages require human testing and approval to go through the extras-testing filter and reach Extras.
- Everybody be strict and recommend Extras and only Extras to pure end users. Big warning to those willing to get fresh meat in extras-testing. Everybody to understand that extras-devel is the wild wild west: don't complain if anything happens to your device, your family or yourself if you try it out.
- Only Extras apps are promoted in maemo.nokia.com.
- The rest of Nokia looks only at maemo.nokia.com when it comes to promote community apps or projects.
Considering all this... what else would you do to signal and evaluate the quality of community projects?
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to qgil For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-08-16
, 16:19
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#33
|
@qgil: I was under the impression we're talking more developer oriented. The extras story is about *distribution*, but we're talking *development* here (unless I got it very wrong 
). Something can pass through extras with flying colours because it's super-polished from a user aspect, but still be a one-man-show with author-only maintainable code in a private SCM.
). Something can pass through extras with flying colours because it's super-polished from a user aspect, but still be a one-man-show with author-only maintainable code in a private SCM.
| The Following User Says Thank You to attila77 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-08-16
, 17:33
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#34
|
Good point attila. I realize I haven't exactly been coherent (
) but to an extent you're right: while I started the focus on distribution, development is also key. A robust workflow encompassing both is needed. Along those lines what Quim had to say was very reassuring-- I had just never seen it all pulled together like that. However, if what you say is true then that looks like another weak link...
BTW I'm working in software/hardware change management now so I'm learning!
Last edited by Texrat; 2009-08-16 at 17:36.
) but to an extent you're right: while I started the focus on distribution, development is also key. A robust workflow encompassing both is needed. Along those lines what Quim had to say was very reassuring-- I had just never seen it all pulled together like that. However, if what you say is true then that looks like another weak link...BTW I'm working in software/hardware change management now so I'm learning!
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Last edited by Texrat; 2009-08-16 at 17:36.
|
|
2009-08-16
, 18:46
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by attila77
Perhaps worth repeating: if packages are in extras*, then by necessity so is the source. Worst case, we just lose the ability to "svn blame" and similar.
Something can pass through extras with flying colours because it's super-polished from a user aspect, but still be a one-man-show with author-only maintainable code in a private SCM.
And what's wrong with one-man-show apps anyway?
 |
|
2009-08-16
, 18:49
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#36
|
Originally Posted by mikkov
Oh I'm sure there are some and I suspect that someone will point them out now that it's been mentioned.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But where's the problem? I don't know any open source projects for Maemo where source code isn't easily available from some public place.
That will just distract from your point which I agree with that:
There aren't many abandoned open source projects for Maemo where source code isn't easily available. Certainly not enough to warrant the resources to design, develop, install, and maintain what would in essence be a YAR (yet another repository
)
Originally Posted by Texrat
...as been said many times on this board, feel free to post your own list. I was just wondering if something stronger might be feasible and useful, at least for perhaps a "premier" tier of apps. I may be just nuts based on responses though.
Originally Posted by Texrat
BTW, I think you may be misguided based on some responses.
I can't name any offhand, either, but others have reported abandoned projects with no access to the latest source...
There may not be many apps abandoned without source code available however, I agree that there are many apps that appear abandoned non the less.
Perhaps energy could be better spent developing good training material that casual users can be directed to so they can post patches and/or make the changes they want in existing apps.
...what is reported may not be due to lack of access to the latest source rather it may be lack of access to a way with which to encourage continued development.
To that^ I say; allowing or encouraging developer links to pay-pal or other donation sites does wonders.
|
|
2009-08-16
, 19:56
|
|
Posts: 3,319 |
Thanked: 5,610 times |
Joined on Aug 2008
@ Finland
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by lma
I'm not sure that's true. Passing through the autobuilder (and ending up in extras) just means it builds - it can still contain blobs or other constituents you don't have the source to.
Perhaps worth repeating: if packages are in extras*, then by necessity so is the source. Worst case, we just lose the ability to "svn blame" and similar.
And what's wrong with one-man-show apps anyway?
|
|
2009-08-16
, 20:15
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#38
|
Originally Posted by A smart and handsome dude
Do you mean something like this?...Perhaps energy could be better spent developing good training material that casual users can be directed to so they can post patches and/or make the changes they want in existing apps...
>> OS and SDK training site <<
| The Following User Says Thank You to YoDude For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-08-16
, 20:38
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#39
|
Heck I'm getting a great education from this thread.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
|
|
2009-08-16
, 21:00
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#40
|
Originally Posted by attila77
Well, yeah, but the context here is open source apps (or is it?). No amount of enticing or forcing someone to go through garage will help with closed apps or components :-)
I'm not sure that's true. Passing through the autobuilder (and ending up in extras) just means it builds - it can still contain blobs or other constituents you don't have the source to.
Not inherently wrong, but if the one man goes, the app gets orphaned. It might survive, but it has significantly slimmer chances of survival than other open source projects where you have several developers who are familiar with the code.
In the meantime I hope no one is seriously suggesting that we are supposed to stop using apps written (mainly) by one author just in case that person gets bored and goes away. Or that we should somehow force extra developers to join such projects (and the projects to accept them). Both attitudes would be borderline mental disorders IMHO.
I guess I don't get what problem we're trying to solve here. Given access to the source of the latest release, what more assurance can we reasonably expect?
| The Following User Says Thank You to lma For This Useful Post: | ||
It has benefits - and dangers, especially if the organization around pushes for compliance; then the result is often bad prose.
Good programming is (as writing) about well structured thinking.
Automatic checking might help having details well documented.
But the kind of code commenting and documentation I have in mind,
which helps the programmer to structure his thoughts and vision,
and also increases code maintainability,
can only be encouraged by human help.
EDIT :
I answered before reading your links.
Good !
Any structure that helps us humans
communicate efficiently,
helps here !
Last edited by KristianW; 2009-08-16 at 12:16.