Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-14 Thread Cyrille Berger
On Friday 14 December 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote: Are you sure about that? I don't know how SuSE or RedHat and others do their releases but I'd expect them to need at least 2 or rather 4 weeks after a KDE 4.1 release until its patched up/fixed for inclusion in the next release. So if the next

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-14 Thread Torsten Rahn
I agree to Mauricio's points, we should do a 'relatively quick' 4.1, then try to move into a time-based release schedule. End January: Lifting feature freeze for trunk/ End of March: (feature/string) freeze trunk/ Mid May: KDE 4.1 I fully agree with Sebas here: What we need most right now

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-14 Thread Andreas Pakulat
On 14.12.07 15:49:24, Cyrille Berger wrote: On Friday 14 December 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote: Are you sure about that? I don't know how SuSE or RedHat and others do their releases but I'd expect them to need at least 2 or rather 4 weeks after a KDE 4.1 release until its patched up/fixed

Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Mauricio Piacentini
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

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Sebastian Kuegler
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:

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Mauricio Piacentini
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

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Mauricio Piacentini
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

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Thomas Zander
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

Re: Discussion about 4.1 timeframe (was Re: What to do about Kompare?)

2007-12-13 Thread Thomas Zander
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