[Kolab-devel] Bugreports Kontact: kolab.org vs. kde.org

[Bernhard Reiter]

Hi Thomas,

(sorry for taking to long to respond, but the trade show in Berlin and the 
preparations for showing the enterprise4 Kontact on Windows and Mac kept us 
very, very busy.)

Am Freitag, 23. Mai 2008 17:00:26 schrieb ITSEF Admin:
> The original problem happened already with kontact proko2.1.5 early last
> year - we noticed the problem that shared folders were showing some
> problems in IMAP accounts which they didn't in DIMAP accounts.

> The initial response of Martin (and subsequently Bernhard) at the time was
> that this problem was IMAP-implementation related, thus not Kolab-specific
> and therefore, I should instead report the bug via kde.org.

> These days, we're moving to Kontact Enterprise (currently SVN805827) - and
> the problem seems to persist. Hence, I had a look at issue1578 again - and
> began wondering: It is quite unclear to me what the relation between
> kde.org and Kolab is in this matter. Will "the KDE developers" e.g. have
> any qualms about me running a Kolab SVN version and subsequently filing
> bugs at kde.org? What is the "official" stance of the Kolab developers on
> problems like this one?

we - as the Kolab community or initiative - have an intimate relationship
and a large overlap with the KDE community. So our stance often is both the 
official KDE Kontact and Kolab Client developers point of view. ;-)

However the KDE community is much larger than the Kolab community,
so the focus is different. Kolab needed to grow its own infrastructure, 
because the companies behind the Kolab-Konsortium (themselfs being within the 
KDE and Kolab communities of course) had signed contracts on project work
and later offering professional support as well.

So the idea was: Have Kolab's tracker only hold the Kolab related issues
and make pointers to upstream trackers.
Sadly, most upstream trackers do not work as nicely as they could.
In addition if  someone that buys support with - lets say Intevation or KDAB - 
might also want to use other Kontact features and thus contract their 
improvement or analysis and we want to do this in the open as well.

So the situation is not as clear as it should be.
A significant portion of KDE Kontact development is 
now done by the "Kolab" developers.

> For an end-user point of view, the initial reaction is simple: There is an
> application with the "Kolab" name on it, it has a bug, report it to "Kolab"
> and let them deal with it. Subsequently being told to go somewhere else can
> feel odd... On the other hand, I can also understand the thoughts behind
> the referal, aiming to deal with bugs in the most efficient way and using
> scarce developer resources well. Hence, I'd be quite happy to hear some
> thoughts/comments on this, so I can take it into account for further
> reports. :-} 

If you know that this is a problem that the Kolab community is interested in,
please file in with the Kolab.org tracker. In addition you can file it with 
upstream as well, no matter what upstream is.
Given that no project, developer, nor support customer 
wants that issue resolved as well,
it might just sit a long while in Kolab's tracker, but I think this is fine.

Bernhard

-- 
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: www.Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080612/40de773c/attachment.sig>