Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
Op woensdag 20 februari 2008 05:13 schreef u: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Dirk Mueller wrote: > > On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Sebastian Kuegler wrote: > > > > > My impression (and the one of other, I gathered that from past > > > discussions) > > > is that two months to stabilise a 4.x release should really be enough. > > > More > > > time in freeze is not a good thing. > > > > I disagree. 2 months is not enough. you need one month alone to tell the > > developers that it is time to head up for a release and at least another > > month to iron out the bugs. > > > > But then again, I'm not the one who wants to release so early, I want to > > release at a later point anyway (to be in sync with other releases of big > > projects). > > > > Greetings, > > Dirk > > > > Just for the record, I actually prefer September myself, but I'm just > the messenger in this case. If we can come to a different consensus on > when we actually want to release, then I (or somebody else) can update > the schedule. No, we decided for July and announced that everywhere. The objections should have raised during that discussion. If you were on vacation, bad luck this time ;-) That does not mean we can not change anything in the future anymore. When we make the schedule for 4.2, we can shift two months /if/ there is concensus on that idea. I do not see an urgent reason to change the schedule for 4.1 And, just for the record, I don't like the idea of making sure 4.1 slips two months to get to that schedule. -- Tom Albers ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Sebastian Kuegler wrote: > > > My impression (and the one of other, I gathered that from past discussions) > > is that two months to stabilise a 4.x release should really be enough. More > > time in freeze is not a good thing. > > I disagree. 2 months is not enough. you need one month alone to tell the > developers that it is time to head up for a release and at least another > month to iron out the bugs. > > But then again, I'm not the one who wants to release so early, I want to > release at a later point anyway (to be in sync with other releases of big > projects). > > Greetings, > Dirk > Just for the record, I actually prefer September myself, but I'm just the messenger in this case. If we can come to a different consensus on when we actually want to release, then I (or somebody else) can update the schedule. IOW, Don't shoot me! I'm just the messenger. :) -- Matt ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Sebastian Kuegler wrote: > My impression (and the one of other, I gathered that from past discussions) > is that two months to stabilise a 4.x release should really be enough. More > time in freeze is not a good thing. I disagree. 2 months is not enough. you need one month alone to tell the developers that it is time to head up for a release and at least another month to iron out the bugs. But then again, I'm not the one who wants to release so early, I want to release at a later point anyway (to be in sync with other releases of big projects). Greetings, Dirk ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
> On Wednesday 13 February 2008 14:43:05 Torsten Rahn wrote: > > I think that the points of times for freezes and their definitions as > > suggested by Matt are quite good actually. I just feel that people won't > > get into release mode this fast, so we need to have a "real" alpha > > release in March first (and basically call your Alpha1 a Beta 1, etc.). > My impression (and the one of other, I gathered that from past discussions) > is that two months to stabilise a 4.x release should really be enough. More > time in freeze is not a good thing. Well, if you read my last mail closely you'll realize that I didn't suggest to change anything about the freeze milestones that Matt has suggested. However my suggestion was to have another release in March to get people into release mode early and to give users a chance to test new stuff early to be able to provide feedback and to give developers time to adjust to the feedback. With the current schedule I don't see this chance. Looking back it has always taken considerable time to get people to realize that now it's time to stop work on new stuff and to start work on bugfixing and polishing things. An early alpha would provide this clue. While with the development of LiveCDs it's much easier for people to test and follow KDE's progress it still takes a release to get the public's attention and the awareness of testers that "this development state" is supposed to be where the software is about to head and that the testers better give feedback now if they feel that stuff is wrong instead of hesitating. Looking back at e.g. the KDE 2.1 schedule which worked really well I notice that the first Beta there happened exactly 2.5 months before the actual release (i.e. December 18th, Beta 2 was on January 31st and KDE 2.1 on February 26th. So far the KDE 2.1 has been the most fast tracked release in KDE's history and given that KDE has grown quite a bit I'd consider it a true challenge to release within such a short time frame again while still delivering a quality release. -- Torsten Rahn Tel.: 0 21 61 - 46 43 - 192 credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080 Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
A Dimecres 13 Febrer 2008, Dirk Mueller va escriure: > On Saturday 26 January 2008, Matt Rogers wrote: > > I've posted a new schedule on > > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedu > >le that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > > > Feedback is appreciated. > > I have a couple of questions: > > a) "Binary compatibility is not required". what do you mean by that? you're > saying that newly added features do not have to be binary compatible? > you're saying that binary incompatible changes are allowed in kdelibs? For me it means, it is not required to maintain binary compatibility of new classes added in the 4.0->4.1 timeframe. Albert > > b) Why a hard feature freeze for alpha1, e.g. before any user announced > release? that doesn't make sense. we should have alpha releases that > attract user attention and be able to react to the feedback, which often > means changing or implementing new features. imho the feature freeze > shouldn't be before beta1 or beta2. > > c) Why a message freeze before beta1? bugfixes often require message > changes. And translators often need time to translate things. And we are quite kind guaranteeing exceptions. Albert > > d) it is still a mis-aligned schedule, however I'm not going to complai too > loudly about it given that it might slip by one month and then be aligned > :) > > e) I like the no-new-artwork freeze. > > Greetings, > Dirk > ___ > release-team mailing list > release-team@kde.org > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 14:43:05 Torsten Rahn wrote: > I mostly agree with Dirk. > > Personally I think that the current proposed schedule is unrealistic in > terms of timescales. Having 2.5 months between an Alpha Release and a Final > Release simply won't work. > > I'd suggest to have an Alpha Release in March, the first Beta at the end > of April, the second Beta at the end of May and the Release Candidate at > the end of June / begin of July. This would make sure that people get into > release mode early again (otherwise we'll have too many construction sites > still two months before the actual release). > > I think that the points of times for freezes and their definitions as > suggested by Matt are quite good actually. I just feel that people won't > get into release mode this fast, so we need to have a "real" alpha release > in March first (and basically call your Alpha1 a Beta 1, etc.). My impression (and the one of other, I gathered that from past discussions) is that two months to stabilise a 4.x release should really be enough. More time in freeze is not a good thing. -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
Hi, I mostly agree with Dirk. Personally I think that the current proposed schedule is unrealistic in terms of timescales. Having 2.5 months between an Alpha Release and a Final Release simply won't work. I'd suggest to have an Alpha Release in March, the first Beta at the end of April, the second Beta at the end of May and the Release Candidate at the end of June / begin of July. This would make sure that people get into release mode early again (otherwise we'll have too many construction sites still two months before the actual release). I think that the points of times for freezes and their definitions as suggested by Matt are quite good actually. I just feel that people won't get into release mode this fast, so we need to have a "real" alpha release in March first (and basically call your Alpha1 a Beta 1, etc.). Regards, Torsten > On Tuesday 12 February 2008 19:01:10 you wrote: > > On Saturday 26 January 2008, Matt Rogers wrote: > > > I've posted a new schedule on > > > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Sche > > >du le that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > > > > > Feedback is appreciated. > > > > I have a couple of questions: > > > > a) "Binary compatibility is not required". what do you mean by that? > > you're saying that newly added features do not have to be binary > > compatible? you're saying that binary incompatible changes are allowed in > > kdelibs? > > That was something I ripped from the 3.5.x release schedule. It's intent is > to say that BC will not be guaranteed for new API. > > > b) Why a hard feature freeze for alpha1, e.g. before any user announced > > release? that doesn't make sense. we should have alpha releases that > > attract user attention and be able to react to the feedback, which often > > means changing or implementing new features. imho the feature freeze > > shouldn't be before beta1 or beta2. > > This is, again, something I did based on the 3.5 schedule. We can push the > feature freeze off until later. No problems for me. > > > c) Why a message freeze before beta1? bugfixes often require message > > changes. > > hehe, ok, so maybe basing my wording on the 3.5.x release schedule wording > wasn't such a good idea. When do you think it would be a good idea to put a > message freeze in place? RC 1? I don't particularly have a preference. > > > d) it is still a mis-aligned schedule, however I'm not going to complai > > too loudly about it given that it might slip by one month and then be > > aligned > > > > :) > > > > e) I like the no-new-artwork freeze. > > > > Greetings, > > Dirk > > Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on making the changes. Should be done by > the end of the week. -- Torsten Rahn Tel.: 0 21 61 - 46 43 - 192 credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080 Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 19:01:10 you wrote: > On Saturday 26 January 2008, Matt Rogers wrote: > > I've posted a new schedule on > > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedu > >le that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > > > Feedback is appreciated. > > I have a couple of questions: > > a) "Binary compatibility is not required". what do you mean by that? you're > saying that newly added features do not have to be binary compatible? > you're saying that binary incompatible changes are allowed in kdelibs? > That was something I ripped from the 3.5.x release schedule. It's intent is to say that BC will not be guaranteed for new API. > b) Why a hard feature freeze for alpha1, e.g. before any user announced > release? that doesn't make sense. we should have alpha releases that > attract user attention and be able to react to the feedback, which often > means changing or implementing new features. imho the feature freeze > shouldn't be before beta1 or beta2. > This is, again, something I did based on the 3.5 schedule. We can push the feature freeze off until later. No problems for me. > c) Why a message freeze before beta1? bugfixes often require message > changes. > hehe, ok, so maybe basing my wording on the 3.5.x release schedule wording wasn't such a good idea. When do you think it would be a good idea to put a message freeze in place? RC 1? I don't particularly have a preference. > d) it is still a mis-aligned schedule, however I'm not going to complai too > loudly about it given that it might slip by one month and then be aligned > :) > > e) I like the no-new-artwork freeze. > > Greetings, > Dirk Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on making the changes. Should be done by the end of the week. -- Matt ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Saturday 26 January 2008, Matt Rogers wrote: > I've posted a new schedule on > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedule > that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > Feedback is appreciated. I have a couple of questions: a) "Binary compatibility is not required". what do you mean by that? you're saying that newly added features do not have to be binary compatible? you're saying that binary incompatible changes are allowed in kdelibs? b) Why a hard feature freeze for alpha1, e.g. before any user announced release? that doesn't make sense. we should have alpha releases that attract user attention and be able to react to the feedback, which often means changing or implementing new features. imho the feature freeze shouldn't be before beta1 or beta2. c) Why a message freeze before beta1? bugfixes often require message changes. d) it is still a mis-aligned schedule, however I'm not going to complai too loudly about it given that it might slip by one month and then be aligned :) e) I like the no-new-artwork freeze. Greetings, Dirk ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Saturday 26 January 2008 06:52:14 Allen Winter wrote: > On Friday 25 January 2008 23:28:37 Matt Rogers wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Taking into account the feedback received in the previous release > > schedule, I've posted a new schedule on > > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedu > >le that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > > > Feedback is appreciated. > > Excellent. > > Yikes! We need a Planned Features doc. > How? Wiki, XML?? > I thought there was a wikipedia plugin that took our normal xml and converted it to wiki format, so that might work. Otherwise, wiki sounds ok to me. -- Matt ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Re: Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
On Friday 25 January 2008 23:28:37 Matt Rogers wrote: > Hi, > > Taking into account the feedback received in the previous release schedule, > I've posted a new schedule on > http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedule > that should work as the nearly final release schedule. > > Feedback is appreciated. > Excellent. Yikes! We need a Planned Features doc. How? Wiki, XML?? ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
Initial revision of KDE 4.1 schedule available on Techbase
Hi, Taking into account the feedback received in the previous release schedule, I've posted a new schedule on http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Schedules/KDE4/4.1_Release_Schedule that should work as the nearly final release schedule. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks -- Matt signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
