KDE 3.1 release schedule draft

[Rob Kaper]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 01:27:55AM -0700, Neil Stevens wrote:
> So then KDE 3.1 has fewer new features than a 3.1 release. So KDE 3.1 is
> more stable than a winter release might.  Why is that bad?  Why do
> developers in the southern hemisphere have to wait for the northerners?
> :-)

I never explicitely said it was bad, I just wanted to make sure we all know
the implications of such a tight schedule.

But one bad thing I can think of is a lot of critism from the
press/trolls/users that 3.1 is not worth the upgrade (and you know how that
will just extrapolate into "KDE is dead" and "GNOME 2.0 dwarfs KDE"
crazyness).

Also, a lot of applications have been moved from kdenonbeta to release
modules while still working towards full release quality. If those projects
won't make 3.1 in time, we'd have to move them back to kdenonbeta (more
maintainance) or disable them from Makefile.am for the release (not quite
elegant either).

Delaying the planned release for one month (four weeks) would almost double
the time left for new features and also significantly increase time
available for outstanding feature commits, while we'd still release 3.1 only
7 months after 3.0, 5 months after 3.0.1 and approx. 3 months after 3.0.2.

(to be truly honest: the draft schedule is not more tight than any of the
previous.. but the late announcement makes me feel like it is)

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | Gimme some love, gimme some skin,
cap at capsi.com | if we ain't got that then we ain't got much
www.capsi.com | and we ain't got nothing, nothing! -- "Nothing" by A