RC readiness, not

[Friedrich W. H. Kossebau]

Hi,

Am Freitag, 13. Juli 2012, 19:07:21 schrieb Thorsten Zachmann:
> Hello,
> 
> On Friday 13 July 2012 16:11:24 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > Hum, the question that needs to be answered at this point is: is calligra
> > 2.5 worse or better than calligra 2.4.3. If it is better (ie no
> > regressions, more bug fixes more features) then it should be released to
> > replace 2.4.3. However if it is worse (ie regressions), then it should be
> > delayed.
> 
> 2.5 is much better then 2.4.3 and has quite some improvements. And I agree
> that we should release 2.5 as long as there are no regressions comapred to
> 2.5.

Okay, reasonable.
Butbutbut... :) ... given the few ODF calligratests which are still failing, 
wouldn't it be great if the release would be one where finally no tests are 
failing? You/we are so close :)

What are tests worth if everyone is okay with some of them failing? Why does 
Jos(?) maintain that server at all? Would it not be a good feeling if the fail 
count is at 0? So one knows she/he can rely on the libs used?

If everyone could join the efforts, the count of failing ODF calligratests (33 
for master, says TeamCity server) and the tests (16 for master, says TeamCity 
server) should be pushed to 0 in a few weeks, no?

And blocking the release on this should also help a little bit with motivation 
to switch from hacking exciting new features to making/keeping the foundation 
relyable ;)

> > As it stands, the two bugs that are tagged as RCs are not regressions,
> > they
> > both happens in 2.4 and 2.5, so if there are new regressions they should
> > be
> > noted and tagged appropriely, otherwise, I think we should proceed.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > And yes, Words is not considered end-user ready, this why the release has
> > the 2.5 version number and not 3.0.

Hm, is 2.5 a known symbol for not-end-user-ready? ;) This aspect is surely 
also not overemphasized in http://www.calligra.org/news/calligra-2-4-released/ 
;)
Which I can understand. See, I was also excited about you finally doing a 
first release with 2.4, showing that the project in progressing. Saying "oh, 
but not really done" would have been working against the original message. But 
now I think the sticker "Technology preview" should be a little bigger on 
those parts which are not too reliable.

> And we still can fix those bugs commit them to master and backport them to
> 2.5 so the next releases will be even better then what we have now.

But a 2.5 which is not as perfect as it could be (by known failing tests) 
leaves bad annotations with that version. And with the name Calligra. Which 
would be sad. Because besides the few issues IMHO not just Krita, but also 
Words, Stage and Flow are quite usable for end-users by my little experience. 
No idea about Sheets and Karbon and the others.

Screwing data on saving is really awful. Are you using Calligra programs 
youself for your serious stuff? Do it :) And feel the light fear ;)
Or why else is the release done? For whom?

My 2 cents. End of money from me here :)

Cheers
Friedrich