On Friday, June 10, 2011 17:24:57 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
In the end, you will be perceived for what you release - and here we get
back to this list. KDE lives from being a consistent whole. Eric
Hameleers already made some very valid points there. Breaking KDE up
does not help, and the
Hello,
On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 11:49:47 Eric Hameleers wrote:
Again, monolithic tarballs or not, this is not the topic. Coordinating
the release process for all the individual submodules is what is going
to make or break KDE's acceptance. Do I have to remind you of the
consequences
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Modestas Vainius wrote:
On penktadienis 10 Bir?elis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
What do small tarballs have to do with this disintegration? I do understand
that you dislike small well-split tarballs but, seriously, don't blame
everything on them. It's only a
So forget about monolithic tarballs please. It is clouding the issue.
Exactly. Having a larger number of small tarballs can be just fine if done
properly. But, they should still have the same release schedule, version
number, and should be tested to work together. I.e. released as a
On Friday, 10 de June de 2011 10:56:11 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Exactly. Having a larger number of small tarballs can be just fine if done
properly. But, they should still have the same release schedule, version
number, and should be tested to work together. I.e. released as a working
On Friday 10 June 2011 01:00:45 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
I just read a very good novel where all such talk about Software
Collection
or Platform was aptly called commercial bulshytt. I think many of us,
including your only-users, would appreciate it if you all there
upstream would
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 06:08:56 PM Tom Albers wrote:
Having KDE's own packages also released in an uncoordinated
fashion
Wow. Who suggested that? That would make a mess indeed. I certainly did not
ever suggest that. If you think so, pleas reread all my mails. I've
suggested that
Hello,
On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
That both makes no sense. Suggestion 1 fails completely with the if they
like part, since we all know already how much pain the out of sync
kdepim caused. Suggestion 2 fails with the independent of the
schedules part,
Dear KDE upstream,
Since KDE is the community, how can we do a KDE 4.8? And then Platform will
call itself 5 if I understood correctly. So how do we call a new release
schedule then?
I just read a very good novel where all such talk about Software Collection
or Platform was aptly called
OK, since a lot of context apparently got lost during the message passing, let
me just state my (personal) position clearly:
What I think is acceptable:
* Module X wants feature Y, which is non-invasive and well-tested and does not
change the user experience nor the user interface in a
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Eric Hameleers wrote:
Andreas, how I agree!
This now, is _exactly_ what I was afraid for when I voiced my concern
about the break-up of this relatively small collection of coherent
source tarballs we are used to work with, into a fragmented and
potentially
I just read a very good novel where all such talk about Software
Collection
or Platform was aptly called commercial bulshytt. I think many of us,
including your only-users, would appreciate it if you all there upstream
would just stick to KDE, because that is what everyone uses. Nothing
12 matches
Mail list logo
