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
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
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
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
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
