Releasing a 2.0.2...

[Mark Kretschmann]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Dan Meltzer
<parallelgrapefruit at gmail.com> wrote:
> We currently have 72 open bugs targeted for 2.0.2, but I don't see
> much interest in fixing them... I think we should think about
> releasing a 2.0.2 anyways.  The ChangeLog for 2.0.2 currently looks
> like this:
>
> VERSION 2.0.2
>  CHANGES:
>    * Show a statusbar message when loving a lastfm track.
>    * Show error message when Wikipedia information cannot be retrieved.
>
>  BUGFIXES:
>    * Open ogg files in Amarok when using Dolphin and other file managers.
>      Patch thanks to Lubos Lunak <l.lunak at kde.org>. (BR 180155)
>    * Fix podcast episodes not ordered right because of incorrect parsing of
>      pubdate. (BR 181338)
>    * Fix crash in tagdialog when editing tracks without an artist. (BR 183180)
>    * Statistics were not calculated properly in all instances. (BR 182025)
>    * Compilation fixes on Open Solaris.
>    * Trim URL before adding a new podcast.
>    * Add Ok button to the podcast configuration dialog to improve usability.
>      (BR 181339)
>    * Add tooltips to now playing widget icons.
>    * Fix not possible to download episodes from newly added podcast channel.
>      (BR 180851)
>
>
> I think theres enough there to merit a release in the next few weeks.
> I do think that we should pay some attention to the bugs open against
> 2.0.2, and am willing to backport any commits that people make in
> trunk that should be backported (If you don't have a stable checkout,
> fex).  Please CC me in the commit if you want me to do this.
>
> Open bugs targetted for 2.0.2: http://tinyurl.com/amarok-202

Backporting and releasing another 2.0.x version is great, we all agree
about this, right?

While it is great indeed, here a few words of caution (from
experience): The one big danger with backporting (the style we are
doing it) is causing regressions in the stable branch. And that, my
friends, is not something you want.

You can be as careful as possible, every commit carries the danger of
introducing a bug accidentally. So you need testers (a group of
dedicated users or developers, permanently testing the branch - we
don't have that. And/or you need automatic code testing ("unit
testing") - we don't have that (yet).


That's basically all I wanted to say. Think about it. Discuss.

-- 
Mark Kretschmann
Amarok Developer
www.kde.org - amarok.kde.org