KDE 3.2 release plan=?iso-8859-1?q?notice

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 12:35:21AM +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Son, 15 Jun 2003, Martijn Klingens wrote:
> > That was more a sidenote. The main question is if we can rename RC1
> > to Final Beta and release all RCs whenever there are no known
> > showstoppers instead of looking at something as arbitrary as a
> > calendar date.
> 
> How do you know if there is no showstopper when you never do release
> candidates?
>
he didn't request that.

> So you just say "ah, thats fine now, lets call it release candidate".
> But when you find a bug in it, you rename it into a beta?
> 
you make the next release candidate.

> After all, they're release _candidates_, not _releases_.
>
yes, and a release candidate is supposed to become a release when no
showstoppers are found. why pretend that it is a rc, if it is none?

> If you call it beta, then there will always sneak in something that
> breaks it. Been there already, happened more than once. 
> 
that's a matter of policy enforcement.
currently people know that our schedules are shifted by one step (alphas
are pre-alphas, i.e., simply random snapshots, betas are alphas and rcs
are (late) betas), so they behave accordingly. create a schedule which
takes the terms by word, emphasize that the terms are to be taken by
word this time and shoot everybody down who does not comply.

> From my own experiences the weekly release candidate schedule was a
> very good idea. 
> 
call them "gamma"s or "pre"s and everything is fine. :-)

just in case it wasn't clear: i emphasize that we are arguing solely
about terminology, not about the schedules themselves.

greetings

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.