KDE 3.2 release plan=?iso-8859-1?q?notice
schumacher at kde.org
Mon Jun 16 22:37:33 BST 2003
On Monday 16 June 2003 23:19, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:11:06PM +0200, Martijn Klingens wrote:
> > On Monday 16 June 2003 03:04, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > just in case it wasn't clear: i emphasize that we are arguing
> > > solely about terminology, not about the schedules themselves.
> > Though I more or less agree with this my point is that a weekly RC
> > makes no sense. You can have multiple RCs a week or one every few
> > weeks or whatever, but the "RC-defining" rule is the code quality
> > and not the calendar.
> yep, that's the whole point. it's simple logic: you _cannot_ plan
> beyond the first RC, as if you do, the first RC isn't a RC any more.
> q.e.d. :) ergo, one or two "gamma"s and _one_ RC should be scheduled,
> with the notice that more RCs _could_ be done, if required.
Isn't it completely pointless to argue about the naming of the releases?
We have a plan, we have a definition what changes are allowed in the
different stages and we have enough common sense to interpet this in a
way that makes sense. I think that's enough for a successful release
Cornelius Schumacher <schumacher at kde.org>
More information about the kde-core-devel