<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Gary Steinert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gary.steinert@gmail.com">gary.steinert@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
For the new features I'm with you. I don't think the small string changes<br>
should have to wait until 2.1 though. I think keeping any new features out of<br>
2.0.x should reduce the pressure on the translators, and will benefit the<br>
2.0.x users until we release 2.1.</blockquote><div><br>The issue is that we want to release point releases every couple of weeks. There are a lot of string we want to change/add. I don't think that we can expect translators to keep up with 2 weeks for string changes if we go about adding all sorts of them. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Also, instructions for getting git to point to two separate repositories would<br>
be very welcomed =P<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Gary Steinert<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Thursday 04 December 2008 14:12:53 Dan Meltzer wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> It seems clear to me that we have a lot of string tweaking to do after 2.0.<br>
> I don't think it's fair however to expect translators to keep up with a 1-2<br>
> week release cycle for our first point releases. I'm not exactly sure the<br>
> best way we can handle this..<br>
><br>
> I'm wondering if we should immediately branch 2.0, keep it string frozen,<br>
> and just do bug fixes in it while starting 2.1 development in trunk and<br>
> planning a 2-3 month development cycle for it (short enough so that the<br>
> missing strings are not missing forever, long enough to still allow for<br>
> features). I think this would be acceptable as many of the 2.1 features we<br>
> have talked about are already implemented and sitting in developers git<br>
> branches, allowing a whole bunch of changes to land post 2.0. I think this<br>
> would also allow us to keep 2.0.x fairly stable (as we all want to get our<br>
> new features in after 2.0 is released, but I don't know if it makes sense<br>
> to put all these features in 2.0.x)<br>
><br>
> The downside to this is that we probably will stop using 2.0.* on a<br>
> day-to-day basis, and would have to have two checkouts in order to make<br>
> bugfixes (though you can set up git to have branches that point to<br>
> different places in svn, which would reduce the amount of different<br>
> checkouting.)<br>
><br>
> Thoughts?<br>
<br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Amarok-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Amarok-devel@kde.org">Amarok-devel@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>