Le jeudi, janvier 7, 2021 12:28 PM, niccolo <nicc...@venerandi.com> a écrit :
> Hi, > sorry to bring this up again, but I would be in favor of a switching to 2 > releases every year. I'd like to add some reasons to do that on the > promotional side: > 1) In Promo, we are quite stepping up our game in the quality of > announcements, to both the website and the release video. We are already a > bit stretched out with time, and having more of that to prepare each release > would benefit us, especially if we intend - and I think we do - to improve > our work even further. I don't agree. The problem is that we are always starting working on an announcement too late. If we were starting more early writing the announcement, it would be easier. > 2) We have measured that doing less announcements every year usually gives > those more engagement; we'd expect a good rise of that if we switch from 3 to > 2 yearly. This is the case for 'release service' announcements. Plasma announcements are getting more and more engagement. Also I'm not sure that having if we were to make 2 announcements instead of 3, the engagement would be more then 50% higher. > 3) Finally, we also expect higher engagement if we have more big features to > promote. In all the releases I've worked on, I always felt - yes, this is > subjective - that the changes were not quite enough to make the user go "wow" > (we are generally talking about 2/4 big features each release). Bringing that > up by ~50% would help a lot. The Plasma 5.21 announcements, I have been working on, is already big enough, so don't worry :) Large set of big features also means more chance of big regressions, big announcements to translate, ... > 4) It is much easier to explain to the users that they are going to get the > new features soon in an announcement, if major distributions such as Ubuntu > and Kubuntu have the new release ready soon, rather than having to wait > months to actually get them. I'm not convinced but I might be biased since I believe full rolling distributions are the only way forward for most end users. > I would also suggest switching to 6 months from a developer point of view, > but here I'd prefer to only argue the benefit in the promotional side, adding > up to the advantage of synced release frequency with distributions. It > doesn't make much sense to be annoyed that your changes do not reach the > users in time in a 6 months release cycle, when you currently have to wait > about the same amount of time, changing every time, before that version gets > picked up by major distributions with most users, as said before. Cheers, Carl > Thanks, > Niccolò > > p.s.: my mail could be arriving with a big delay and duplicated; if so, I'm > sorry, I did some confusion with my different email addresses. > > From "Plasma-devel" plasma-devel-boun...@kde.org > To "plasma-devel" plasma-devel@kde.org > Cc kde-de...@kde.org > Date Tue, 1 Dec 2020 16:01:29 +0000 > Subject Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma > > We discussed this in the Plasma meeting on Monday and I'm afraid there's > little appetite in moving to a 6 monthly release or a 3 monthly release. We > did used to have a 3 monthly schedule but that is too tight given the length > of beta and freezes we want to have now. But also 6 monthly feels too long, > for distros that miss the release that become a long time that we have users > on an older release. > > Having said that if there's occasions where we can shift a release a bit to > help distros we're happy to do that. > > Jonathan
