Why incremental UI changes are the way to go

[Ian Monroe]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Nikolaj Hald Nielsen
<nhnfreespirit at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I generally agree with these points (How can I not, I am always
> the big proponent of agile methodology) I think this line of reasoning
> misses 2 key points.

Thanks Nikolaj and Mark for summarizing an important IRC conversation
for everyone else. :)

I do think merge in UI changes as they happen should be the
preference, as with any change. And incremental changes are better.
These are just generalizations though, not familiar with the details
of the discussion.

Version numbers are always 100% marketing, as any part of
"communication with outside the project" is marketing really. Of
course part of that means we shouldn't oversell an incremental
release.

I was thinking when we swap out our qtscript backend would be a good
excuse for an increment to 2.3 as it will be a significant speedup and
it might break some scripts. While I was in Europe this month Richard
Dale pulled a Richard Dale and seems to have almost finished the
bindings. :) They're working on further optimizations but the release
of qtscript-smoke is probably measured in weeks. I'll look more into
the current state and create a roadmap of that project to send here.
It might make sense to release it as part of the Amarok source code
before depending on it as a seperate project, like we've done with
these things in the past. Its complicated by the fact that
qtscript-smoke is moving to kdebindings (which typically can be built
against older versions of KDE and Qt, but it sometimes gets treated as
a normal kde module by the distros).

Ian