release schedule proposal

[Inge Wallin]

On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 09:35:00 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> With the removal of kexi, krita and kplato from the koffice.org website,
> I'm reluctant to continue having krita released as part of KOffice 2.3.x.
> In fact, even though I'm fairly sure that giving up maintainance of
> KOffice 2.3 is exactly that TZ wanted to achieve, I don't think we should
> put any effort in KOffice 2.3.x at all any more. And I'm past caring about
> all that.

Well, I'm not.  I may be after the arbitration, but right now I still want to 
keep up the 2.3 work. I feel we made a commitment to that when we released 
2.3.0.

> However, I do want regular releases of Krita and Calligra going out.
> Personally, I want Krita users to get access to all the goodness, in a
> relatively timely way, but also with relatively stable software. And I
> don't want to wait until April!
>
> What I propose is this:
> 
> * since it's clear that the calligra developers are really grokking git
> now, mostly working in branches, getting the branches reviewed before
> committing to master, master is plenty stable [1].
> 
> * so, let's release Calligra master every month, called something like
> Calligra 3.0 Stable Preview 1..n, containing all apps, including flow and
> words [2].

There is no [2].  :-)

Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time? The 
reason I ask is that I wonder which Linux distros are going to package the 
previews and how.

Especially interesting is if Calligra 3.0 previews will be able to exist in 
parallel with KOffice 2.3.  I fear there are still some collisions with names 
of binaries and especially library and plugin names. The same question is of 
course valid for a stable Calligra 3.0 release but when we have a stable 
release it's much less likely that the user would want both.

You may argue that the same could be true for the previews since they are 
supposed to be stable, but as a user I would still have an uneasy feeling.

> * that way people can see progress, users can have access to newer versions
> under the proper name, calligra develops some buzz (which we sorely need
> -- we know that our git repo is brimming with activity, but that is barely
> visible!)

Yeah.  I think it would indeed build some interest.  And we could also much 
easier get user feedback in our quest for end user readiness for 3.0.

Btw, does this mean that you suggest that we skip the intermediate step of 
releasing Calligra 2.4?