<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Marco Martin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:notmart@gmail.com" target="_blank">notmart@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Monday 30 June 2014, Jonathan Riddell wrote:<br>
> At the Hangout meeting today it was decided to go with a three month<br>
> release cycle and bug fix branch and to use this cycle for 5.0 and 5.1.<br>
><br>
> I've updated the schedule <a href="http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/Plasma_5" target="_blank">http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/Plasma_5</a><br>
><br>
> RC tagging and tars this Thursday<br>
> 5.0 tagging next Thursday when I'll make 5.0 branches too<br>
> Four week later is 5.0.1 from stable branch<br>
> Four weeks later is 5.0.2 from stable branch<br>
> A week after that and is 5.1 beta and freeze for features and messages<br>
> Four weeks later is 5.1 release<br>
<br>
</div>not completely sure the bugfix branches would be used that much, I guess we<br>
have to see how we can work with it<br>
<br>
one thing that occurred to me after the hangout this morning, is that the<br>
plasma-framework part that is a big part would have the one month schedule,<br>
while the workspace parts would be 3 months, that sounds kinda weird.<br>
but i guess we could say no features on every third release of plasma-<br>
framework, so synchs with the workspace.<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
last thing, if the workspace has a slower cycle than all the frameworks, means<br>
that it should always work with several frameworks releases at once, since we<br>
wouldn't know what mix of version ends up in a distribution.<br><br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div>It's quite unfortunate the fact that we'll have a more schedule for the frameworks and then the workspaces won't be able to take advantage of those.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think it makes sense to decide to stop the development on a plasma-framework, because after-all plasma depends on many other frameworks just as well. It's random to choose Plasma just because it shares maintainership.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Aleix</div></div></div>