Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Jonathan Riddell]

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

Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:25 AM Aleix Pol  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Edmundson  
> wrote:
>>>
>>> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to 
>>> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more 
>>> distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release 
>>> cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases.
>>
>>
>> We have in the past shuffled things slightly to line up things up with 
>> distros on request, particularly LTS releases. We can certainly explore that 
>> on a one-off basis.
>>
>> >With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta releases 
>> >over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the beta and RC 
>> >releases of those distributions thus enabling more pre-release testing.
>>
>> We did have 6 month release cycles in the past.
>>
>> The rationale for moving at the time was twofold:
>>  - people rushed in changes towards the feature freeze as otherwise it would 
>> be aages till their changes reached users
>>  - the more changes we have in a release, the more testing and inevitable 
>> regression fixes we need to do, spreading that out should result in things 
>> being more stable
>>
>> Initially we did every 3 months (which arguably still aligns) then it slowly 
>> slipped to 4.
>>
>> My personal impression is that releases have gotten better as a result of 
>> those changes, so I'm hesitant about reverting that decision.
>>
>
>
> Makes sense. With Qt being less of a moving target though, it could make 
> sense to reevaluate our cadence though, both because we might start looking 
> into the future and because the system we support should not be changing as 
> much.
>

If we don't want to move to 6 months, pulling back from 4 months to 3
months would make it easier for us to not miss Plasma releases.

That being said, with Qt6 now being a thing, wouldn't that mean Qt is
more of a moving target again?



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Aleix Pol]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:38 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:25 AM Aleix Pol  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Edmundson 
> >  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to 
> >>> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more 
> >>> distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release 
> >>> cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases.
> >>
> >>
> >> We have in the past shuffled things slightly to line up things up with 
> >> distros on request, particularly LTS releases. We can certainly explore 
> >> that on a one-off basis.
> >>
> >> >With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta 
> >> >releases over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the 
> >> >beta and RC releases of those distributions thus enabling more 
> >> >pre-release testing.
> >>
> >> We did have 6 month release cycles in the past.
> >>
> >> The rationale for moving at the time was twofold:
> >>  - people rushed in changes towards the feature freeze as otherwise it 
> >> would be aages till their changes reached users
> >>  - the more changes we have in a release, the more testing and inevitable 
> >> regression fixes we need to do, spreading that out should result in things 
> >> being more stable
> >>
> >> Initially we did every 3 months (which arguably still aligns) then it 
> >> slowly slipped to 4.
> >>
> >> My personal impression is that releases have gotten better as a result of 
> >> those changes, so I'm hesitant about reverting that decision.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Makes sense. With Qt being less of a moving target though, it could make 
> > sense to reevaluate our cadence though, both because we might start looking 
> > into the future and because the system we support should not be changing as 
> > much.
> >
>
> If we don't want to move to 6 months, pulling back from 4 months to 3
> months would make it easier for us to not miss Plasma releases.
>
> That being said, with Qt6 now being a thing, wouldn't that mean Qt is
> more of a moving target again?

It will take some time to be able to put together a release that's
fully tested against Qt 6.

Aleix

Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Aleix Pol]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Edmundson 
wrote:

> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to
>> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more
>> distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release
>> cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases.
>>
>
> We have in the past shuffled things slightly to line up things up with
> distros on request, particularly LTS releases. We can certainly explore
> that on a one-off basis.
>
> >With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta
> releases over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the
> beta and RC releases of those distributions thus enabling more pre-release
> testing.
>
> We did have 6 month release cycles in the past.
>
> The rationale for moving at the time was twofold:
>  - people rushed in changes towards the feature freeze as otherwise it
> would be aages till their changes reached users
>  - the more changes we have in a release, the more testing and inevitable
> regression fixes we need to do, spreading that out should result in things
> being more stable
>
> Initially we did every 3 months (which arguably still aligns) then it
> slowly slipped to 4.
>
> My personal impression is that releases have gotten better as a result of
> those changes, so I'm hesitant about reverting that decision.
>
>

Makes sense. With Qt being less of a moving target though, it could make
sense to reevaluate our cadence though, both because we might start looking
into the future and because the system we support should not be changing as
much.

Aleix

Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Niccolò Ve]

Hi,
Currently there is a KDE Plasma every 4 months. You are suggesting to
change that to 6 months, is that correct?
Niccolò

2020-11-24 16:07 (GMT+01:00), "Timothée Ravier"  said:
> Hi KDE/Plasma developers!
> Nowadays, Fedora and Kubuntu make new releases twice a year within a week of
> each other, with relatively predictable release schedules.
> Unfortunately, new KDE/Plasma releases happen a little bit too late for them 
> to
> be included in those distributions in time for the release. Thus the current
> version of KDE/Plamsa in both Fedora and Kubuntu is one release behind (at
> least on release day). It may or may not be updated after the release.
> For the Fedora KDE SIG, we have an issue about this:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issue/25
> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to
> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more distribution
> friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release cycle (and then keep
> the 6 month schedule) to align releases.
> With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta releases 
> over
> a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the beta and RC releases
> of those distributions thus enabling more pre-release testing.
> All of this would benefit both upstream and downstream:
> - More pre-release and just released software testing as users test the new
> distribution version directly with the KDE beta and fresh stable releases
> - More updated and happy users using the latest release
> - Less bugs reported against older releases, more bugs reported before the
> final stable releases
> What do you think?
> Thanks!
> Timothée Ravier for the Fedora KDE SIG
> --
> Timothée Ravier
> Red Hat & Fedora CoreOS Engineer
> https://www.redhat.com/";>Red Hat
> trav...@redhat.com IM: travier
>

Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[Timothée Ravier]

Hi KDE/Plasma developers!

Nowadays, Fedora and Kubuntu make new releases twice a year within a week
of each other, with relatively predictable release schedules.

Unfortunately, new KDE/Plasma releases happen a little bit too late for
them to be included in those distributions in time for the release. Thus
the current version of KDE/Plamsa in both Fedora and Kubuntu is one release
behind (at least on release day). It may or may not be updated after the
release.

For the Fedora KDE SIG, we have an issue about this:
https://pagure.io/fedora-kde/SIG/issue/25

As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to
slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more
distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release
cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases.

With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta releases
over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the beta and RC
releases of those distributions thus enabling more pre-release testing.

All of this would benefit both upstream and downstream:

  - More pre-release and just released software testing as users test the
new distribution version directly with the KDE beta and fresh stable
releases
  - More updated and happy users using the latest release
  - Less bugs reported against older releases, more bugs reported before
the final stable releases

What do you think?

Thanks!

Timothée Ravier for the Fedora KDE SIG

-- 

Timothée Ravier

Red Hat & Fedora CoreOS Engineer

Red Hat 

trav...@redhat.comIM: travier

Re: Synchronized release schedule for Plasma

[David Edmundson]

>
> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to
> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more
> distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release
> cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases.
>

We have in the past shuffled things slightly to line up things up with
distros on request, particularly LTS releases. We can certainly explore
that on a one-off basis.

>With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta releases
over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the beta and RC
releases of those distributions thus enabling more pre-release testing.

We did have 6 month release cycles in the past.

The rationale for moving at the time was twofold:
 - people rushed in changes towards the feature freeze as otherwise it
would be aages till their changes reached users
 - the more changes we have in a release, the more testing and inevitable
regression fixes we need to do, spreading that out should result in things
being more stable

Initially we did every 3 months (which arguably still aligns) then it
slowly slipped to 4.

My personal impression is that releases have gotten better as a result of
those changes, so I'm hesitant about reverting that decision.

David


>