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

[Neil Stevens]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday June 18, 2003 05:01, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 10:09:01AM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > OK, what's the difference between
> > * "there will be two RC candidates, maybe more"
> >
> > and
> > * "we plan exactly one RC, but are 100% sure there will be more"
> > ?
>
> at this point it becomes obvious that we _know_ that RC1 won't be in a
> releaseable state, which means that it simply is no RC. what exactly
> speaks against calling these realease-non-candidates "pre"?

I'd say that betas *and* RCs should be dropped in favor of a string of 
"pre"s.

It's simple, flexible, and reduces the chance of a misunderstanding of the 
reliability of each release.  Each "pre" should be better than the one 
before it, but there is no set cutoff of when it's releasable.  So if KDE 
3.2 is ready after pre4, then fine.  If it's not ready until pre8, then 
nobody got hurt.

- -- 
Neil Stevens - neil at qualityassistant.com
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him
for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." -- Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+8FaCf7mnligQOmERAmNKAKCGLZA/32vATbjcuBLzwu2VdM7viACfXhoT
udMWV/JR8JpqM/zGtF01Xjg=
=Pxa5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----