<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Mark Kretschmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kretschmann@kde.org">kretschmann@kde.org</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;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Dan Meltzer<br>
<<a href="mailto:parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com">parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> 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 to<br>
> 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 different<br>
> places in svn, which would reduce the amount of different checkouting.)<br>
><br>
> Thoughts?<br>
<br>
</div></div>The plan that I, Nikolaj, and a few others had discussed on IRC was to<br>
keep 2.0 as trunk for about 3 weeks after release, so that we can all<br>
focus entirely on bug fixing. If we branch immediately, we'd be forced<br>
to backport, and that never works out very well in reality.<br>
<br>
We would then do a 2.0.1 and maybe 2.0.2 release from trunk, and after<br>
that branch.</blockquote><div><br>That doesn't really answer how we will handle string changes :)<br><br>Do we want to keep A2 frozen for strings until we branch it? or are we just going to hope the translators can keep up <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>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Mark Kretschmann<br>
Amarok Developer<br>
<a href="http://www.kde.org" target="_blank">www.kde.org</a> - <a href="http://amarok.kde.org" target="_blank">amarok.kde.org</a><br>
</font><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>