KDE 3.2 release cycle

[Neil Stevens]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday May 12, 2003 01:52, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Monday 12 May 2003 09:29, Stephan Binner wrote:
> > Either switch to a time-based or feature-based release-schedule now.
>
> Any reason why? I still think that KDE is in a state where features
> don't bring us further, but all these little bugs and misfeatures are
> those that are missing to perfection. So while a time based schedule
> makes sense as soon as you fixed a good share of bugs, I don't want to
> see a KDE 3.2 that is released just because some months passed.

So, why will delaying get more bugs fixed?  Do you think that developers 
want to fix them, but just don't have time?  Do you think that developers 
haven't wanted to, but will to get the release out?

There's a big difference here.  If developers don't want to fix bugs, then 
delaying won't get the bugs fixed.  The developers will just keep adding 
features, making stability gradually worse, for that's what separate 
releases are for.  Or if a feature freeze is imposed, then development 
will just move off of HEAD.  You can't force volunteers to do what they 
don't want to do.

I think some sort of compromise is needed.  Go with stability-based 
releases, but with a default time if the stability goal isn't reached by 
then.

- -- 
Neil Stevens - neil at qualityassistant.com
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+v3A/f7mnligQOmERAmT8AJ9n1UGL9cAY2K8dSSUQfkGlvZTWYgCeNlII
4oh6YBP6AjG+6Hc6KXiUHY0=
=pPSN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----