-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Sebastian Kuegler wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 12:35:29 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
I think we might want to bump pretty quickly to a 4.1 release and
that's when we can enable it again (and move some games and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:53 AM, John Tapsell wrote:
+1 vote for not including and having a 4.1 release within 3-4 months
of 4.0. I think everyone can be satisfied with that.
I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
features
On 13.12.07 07:10:20, Matt Rogers wrote:
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:53 AM, John Tapsell wrote:
+1 vote for not including and having a 4.1 release within 3-4 months
of 4.0. I think everyone can be satisfied with that.
I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
features
On Thursday 13 December 2007 14:08:32 Matt Rogers wrote:
How do people feel about this as rough planning?
How about starting a new thread for it instead?
Good call. I'll post a more thought-through proposal shortly.
--
sebas
http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
features and that's quite crazy. If we do this, you once again leave
out KDevelop and kdewebdev from the release because i don't think
those are going to be ready in 3-4 months. You also leave out a
significantly better
Le Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:04:20 pm Allen Winter, vous avez écrit :
Howdy,
For 4.x, where x =1, I think we need to require maintainers for all our
modules.
yes, this is good!
Being a module maintainer is not a big task, it's only about getting things
organized: organize an IRC meeting
On Thursday 13 December 2007 16:59:16 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
Well, I think that *AFTER* 4.0 it is wrong to continue doing
feature-based releases, and we could experiment a bit with
schedule-driven ones. If it is 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 months it is open for
discussion. But the basic idea is:
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
of course that's what we always used to do. 2.0 and 4.0 have been the only
two
exceptions i can think of since i've been around the project.
Yes, this was something we talked about during last Akademy, when there
was the suggestion to move to 6 months cycle. We already
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
If something can not be
done in 3 months, it is doubtful that it would be ready in 4 or 5, at
least in the open source world, right?
i haven't seen that to be the case, no.
The half of my brain that almost understands English is confused by this
double negative, in
On Thursday 13 December 2007 18:25:16 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
After 4.1, we should probably experiment with the 6 month release
schedule that seems to be working for other projects,
for certain values of working. for at least one major project, there
was an immediate and noticeable decline in
On Thursday 13 December 2007 18:43:53 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
i'd sooner see us (loosely) sync along with the Qt dev cycle (which has
become much more regular, ~9 month per release) to keep a steady flow
of feature / bug fixes going between KDE and Qt.
Ok, keeping a pace with Qt
Ok, so i renamed from kwin4 to KFourInLine given the kdegames IRC meeting
consensus and Martin that is the maintainer agreeing.
I'm almost sure i've done everything needed so that it works, i could start a
game and play, but obviously double checking everything works as expected is
welcome.
12 matches
Mail list logo
