<div dir="ltr">Hello Heiko,<div><br></div><div>this sounds like a good proposal. I can also provide some help as I've done releases in the past.</div><div><br></div><div>About merging KF5 branch into master, I'm not sure how feasible this is considering that both branches have diverged a lot. Perhaps we will need to ask the admins to switch (or rather rename) KF5 to master and master to something else.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Mark</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:09 PM, Heiko Becker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:heirecka@exherbo.org" target="_blank">heirecka@exherbo.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello everybody,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 01/26/18 13:45, Matěj Laitl wrote:<br>
> Hi Stefano,<br>
> I totally agree, 2.9 should be released to push the work done to users.<br>
<br>
</span>I agree, although I don't really know how adoption by distros will turn<br>
out, considering Qt4 is EOL since quite some time, same for KDELibs<br>
(although not that long). But a release isn't that much effort and at<br>
least shows some activity and maybe provides incentive to contribute and<br>
if all that fails it's at least a fixed point before the port to Qt5/KF5.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> I unfortunately won't find time to do it myself, but: try to start<br>
> making the release yourself! ;) It should be documented quite well.<br>
<br>
</span>I'd be willing to tackle this, if nobody steps up (which appears to be<br>
the case at the moment, sorry if I stepped on any toes). Being a<br>
packager and having done a few extragear releases with releaseme should<br>
be quite helpful.<br>
<br>
So, I propose the following schedule:<br>
<br>
- 1 week to find out what can be fixed in short time with low manpower<br>
or should be disabled (e.g cover search services)<br>
- Create tarball afterward, give packagers and others some time to test<br>
- If all goes well release on March, 5th<br>
- Merge kf5 (which isn't unusable after the latest patches from Malte)<br>
into master afterwards<br>
<span class=""><br>
> If you get stuck or need help with particular tasks, speak up on ML (and<br>
> CC me), I'm quite confident somebody from us will help. (people usually<br>
> procrastinate "big" tasks, but answering a concrete questions is much<br>
> easier)<br>
<br>
</span>What I'm a bit unsure about is how to communicate the release. Something<br>
along the lines "This release might not be as polished as past releases,<br>
but there's some activity and bug fixes, a port to KF5 and any help is<br>
certainly welcome."?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Heiko<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:43 PM Stefano Pettini<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> <<a href="mailto:stefano.pettini@gmail.com">stefano.pettini@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:stefano.pettini@gmail.com">stefano.pettini@gmail.<wbr>com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Matej,<br>
><br>
> have you received my last message to the mailing list? What's your<br>
> opinion? Sadly the project seems really abandoned, still it doesn't<br>
> mean we can't do a last release. I also wrote to Myriam, she didn't<br>
> answer, hope everything is fine.<br>
><br>
> Stefano<br>
><br>
><br>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> From: *Stefano Pettini* <<a href="mailto:stefano.pettini@gmail.com">stefano.pettini@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:stefano.pettini@gmail.com">stefano.pettini@gmail.<wbr>com</a>>><br>
> Date: Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 10:05 AM<br>
> Subject: A proposal to release 2.9<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> To: <a href="mailto:amarok-devel@kde.org">amarok-devel@kde.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:amarok-devel@kde.org">amarok-devel@kde.org</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> it's many years now that Amarok 2.9 is about to be released. The<br>
> saturday-morning emails remember us weekly that there are still a<br>
> couple of regressions since years. In the meanwhile development<br>
> almost stopped, but not completely. I, like many, contributed with<br>
> small but important patches (otherwise we would haven't dedicated<br>
> time to provide such fixes).<br>
><br>
> I think it's fair if the work since 2.8 is not wasted and 2.9 is<br>
> released.<br>
><br>
> Current regressions are minor bugs, the only annoying thing not<br>
> working anymore is the cover search. But it's not a newly-introduced<br>
> regression, just the world changed and all the services used for<br>
> cover search become not available anymore. It's not a problem not<br>
> present in 2.8 that people would face when updating to 2.9. It's<br>
> already broken now.<br>
><br>
> I would disable what doesn't work to not give false impressions,<br>
> removing the broken services from cover search, and release 2.9.<br>
> This would fix the access to wikipedia and other bugs we dedicated<br>
> time to.<br>
><br>
> Cover search can be restored later, if developers find time to<br>
> dedicate to it and somebody reviews the available services and<br>
> select the suitable ones for the future Amarok.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Stefano<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>