On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:04:37PM +0100, Karolina Lindqvist wrote: > There is no fixed RC4 release in the CVS, since it is not separately tagged. > At least as far as I can see. Instead it is continuously updated, and it is > thus more of a CVS snapshot than a release candidate. The question with that > is always when to make the snapshot? The separately packed RC4 snapshot is > read protected, for some reason.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 01:06:27AM -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote: > Dirk Mueller wrote: > >Hi, > > > >CVS HEAD is open for commits again for KDE 3.2 release. > > > I must say that I am not happy to hear this. > > I still am unable to compile three packages in KDE_3_1_0_RELEASE. > > <irony> So, we won't really concern ourselves with the bugs in the > current release which won't even compile, we will just rush on with new > features. </irony> > > I would like to suggest that I feel that this model of the development > tree is WRONG -- that it contributes to buggy code. Yes I know that > many projects do it that way -- and many projects produce buggy code. > > First I would like to suggest that we take a pause here. Release 3.1.0 > has a certain significance when compared to the competition: Windows. > It was after that release that Windows went into feature bloat and > change for the sake of change and never mind fixing the bugs. It > finally reached the point before the release (or escape) of Windows 2000 > that the code was such a mess that nobody understood how it was supposed > to work and a programmer with a phD in CS was assigned to try to fix it. > He and a team of professional programmers were unable to do the job. > > My point is that we should be very careful not to in any way repeat the > mistakes of MicroSoft Windows. > > As I understand the current model, the release is branched off and > becomes the less important while HEAD continues immediately with new > development and becomes the more important. I see this as the first > problem. The current release should be the more important and work on a > future release should be the less important. > > One model I have seen is simply not to branch the current release for a > certain period of time with new features being worked on separately to > be integrated into the current HEAD at the end of this post release > development pause. What I see as the most advantageous part of this is > the bugs do NOT need to be fixed twice -- that the new features are > added to the release after a period of bug fixing. > > I would like to see this method made somewhat permanent. That the > current release remains HEAD until it is decided that the final minor > release has been made and only then is it branched off. Until that time > all new features would be in a temporary branch and would have to be > based on the new release. > > And, yes I know that this would make it more difficult to add new > features, but would also make it easier to fix the bugs. And, would > also require that the bugs be fixed in the current release. > > Whether it is with commercial software or open source software, users do > not like to hear that the bug has been fixed (or will be fixed) in the > next major release. They should not hear that. Major releases are for > new features NOT for bug fixes. > > So, that is my manifesto. I would appreciate it if I received no > arrogant and flippant comments about this. They do not in any way > promote a useful discussion. > > I also wanted to make a note here so that everyone that reads this will > know: I am a professional programmer retired on disability. I studied > Electrical Engineering & Computer Science in college. There is much > that I do not know about the KDE project. But I know a lot more about > computer programing than some of the self taught hackers that have been > telling me that I don't know anything (yes that is an arogrant remark). > I don't appreciate it and you only make fools of yourself doing it. > > -- > JRT I reported this msg from kde-devel just to underline that, IMMO, your doubts about KDE's development model are not echoes in the desert. Ciao, Paolo -- If Linux is not Unix then Windows are not Gates Anonymous, XXI Century