Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Monday, November 7, 2011 16:35:57 Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> Maybe we should really resurrect the existence of a master 4.8? > > unecessary imho, and runs the extreme danger of repeating the 3->4 debacle > with kdelibs where people just keep working on the stable release and > don't care enough for the next important release of libs.
You cannot really FORCE volunteers to work on what you want them to work on. Preventing them from working on what THEY want to work on will just lead to them moving their work elsewhere, e.g.: * separate git repositories (which in fact is exactly what you are doing with libkactivities! Talk about hypocrisy…), * distro patches (which you keep complaining about, yet it is exactly what the "frozen master" debacle is leading to), * maybe even an outright fork like Trinity (of KDE 3) or MATE (of GNOME 2). (But don't get me wrong, I'm NOT interested in keeping 4.x alive for ages, I'm just interested in 4.x NOW because 5.0 isn't anywhere near ready, even when we're just talking about the libraries/frameworks, let alone when we actually consider applications and/or workspaces building on the new libraries/frameworks. And I believe that most, if not all, people interested in 4.x work right now are in that boat, I doubt 4.x is going to suscite anywhere near the amount of long-term nostalgia 3.x did. We WILL eventually work on 5.x. Just not NOW.) In addition, this situation might actually push some contributors NOT to work with you on 5.0 material. I can tell you that your refusal to get my libplasma PackageKit work into 4.8 definitely did demotivate me from doing any work on the 5.0 version. So you achieve exactly the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. That said, considering the 4.8 release schedule, it is now really too late to reopen kdelibs 4.8 for feature development anyway. :-( It should have been done when I originally asked for it a month ago (or even better, it should never have been closed down in the first place!). Kevin Kofler