[kde-linux] KDE 3 Beta

[Ben Kevan]

> > It's tagged, but looks to now be called Beta 4, with the Dev Platform
> >  release at RC1 instead of final release.  We'll keep rolling out
> > Beta's until it's ready for an RC.  That's KDE's traditional
> > labelling.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
I agree also. I've been using Beta 3 since it's release and would like to see 
a Beta 4 prior to a RC release on the 30th. 

>
> Yes, but ... (TM).  Using your analogy, you don't say that the house is
> ready till you put on the roof and paint it.  I agree that much of KDE4
> is Beta, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that the only part that
> isn't ready for Beta is Plasma.  IIRC, I tried to use KWrite and it
> crashed on opening -- so some of it is still Alpha.

Sometimes on a non KDE 4 machine I open something up and it crashes (even on 
Gnome), does that mean they are alpha? This happens on XP also? 

I can use Kwrite without error on KDE 4. Do you have a backtrace? 

>
> > A myth we need to dispel is that come 4.0 everything will be perfect,
> >  everything will be shiny new, everything will be finished.
>

Ah yes, I don't expect it to be perfect, but I do expect a usable product to 
be used. On my production machine I will probably not move to KDE 4 until 
about 4.1

> The problem which I have observed in the KDE development methodology is
> that the product is NEVER finished -- it doesn't matter if it is 4.0.0,
> 4.1.0 or 4.2.0, it still won't be any closer to 100%.

Most software has continous development, this is how you improve it.

> > That's not how open source works, that's not how KDE works.  This is
> > not Vista or Leopard where a box ships and sits on the shelf largely
> > unchanged for 5 years bar the odd SP or security patch.

XP Changed ALOT when SP2 came out and as of lately we know Microsoft is 
pushing out stealth updates.. Who knows what they are doing lol. 

> It isn't a matter of waiting around for everything to be done.  What we
> need to do is only release the stuff which is done in our stable
> releases.  Early KDE-3 releases contained stuff which clearly wasn't
> ready for prime time and this reflects negatively on the reputation of
> the KDE project.  Yes, the stable 4.0.0 release is going to have bugs,
> but stuff that simply doesn't work is more than just a bug and should be
> treated differently.

Yes, but change keeps peoples interest. I get bored pretty easily, and 
constant change (unlike XP) is great. I know this isn't the likelyhood of 
the "Normal" community, but I like it. Who gets excited about XP now? 

>
> Other projects have adopted a two track approach where there is an
> unstable branch (or really it is Trunk) and there is a stable release
> branch.  Stuff is developed in Trunk and then migrated to the Stable
> branch ONLY when it meets QA standards.  Or, this can be reversed where
> Trunk is the stable release and new stuff is developed outside of Trunk
> and then added ONLY when it meets QA standards (IIUC the Linux Kernel is
> done this way).

I would like to see the dual trunk also. 

>
> There are other methodologies which could probably accomplish the same
> ends.
>
> We can continue to and new stuff, but there needs to be some method to
> ensure that we deliver a commercially viable (stable) product.  Other
> projects have figured out how to do this, we need to do the same.