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/fi
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 n
On 14.12.07 13:55:38, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> Also keep in mind that if we target our release for May then the release will
> most likely still happen in June due to usual delays!
>
> Most major distributors plan to release around that time, so I'd rather plan
> for a release in May if we want to
> 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
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:25, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > The point is that some applications are ALREADY waiting for inclusion
> > since July/07! That is why I think a release in April makes sense, it
> 4 months after 4.0? that's 2.5 months of development time at best. seems
> rather short.
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
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 de
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 negativ
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 alr
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: w
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> > > 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
