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

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:48:46PM +0200, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Mit, 18 Jun 2003, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > 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"?
> 
> Oh boy. We really don't label things RC1 when we know that its not a
> release candidate.
>
you do. otherwise the translators would have exactly one week.

> But somewhen you have to start, otherwise we will never release. 
> And experience shows that the first try is always screwed up. Its not that 
> we plan that this is going to happen, its just that its being honest to 
> admit that Murphy's Law applies to the KDE Project as well. 
> 
yes, and i think my suggestion is more honest and unambiguous.

> > btw, somebody has to explain to me, what this "The HEAD branch is
> > frozen for feature commits that are not listed in the
> > planned-feature document." stuff is supposed to be good for. either
> > you get ready before the real feature freeze or you don't - so why
> > put such an arbitrary restriction on spontaneous creativity?
> 
> Because of existing experience with previous schedules that didn't do
> that. 
> 
and what was this experience exactly?

> > Start of Release Cycle: Preparing Pre-Alpha
> 
> There are very few users who install an alpha, if you call it
> pre-alpha nobody is ever going to test it. Most feedback comes from
> people who download and install the KDE binaries. And although the KDE
> project does not do nor support binary packages, it is the thing that
> matters to the end users. You cannot expect that any distro packager
> wastes time on packaging a "pre-alpha". Thats just not gonna happen.
> Very simple. 
> 
what you are suggesting here is being dishonest about the quality to
gain more users. that's what i call politics.

> > += 1 week: Pre2
> > 
> > += 1 week
> >   If no showstoppers are known by now, this will be RC1, otherwise
> >   another Pre.
> >   Repeat until success.
> 
> What do you do if a showstopper was introduced between pre2 and the thing 
> you tagged as RC1 ?
> 
nothing. scrap rc1 and do an rc2.

> Will you pull the release and rename it into pre3 then? Really?
> 
which part of my text exactly suggested this?

> Anyway, if we know about showstopppers, then there is no point in
> releasing it at all. Its ridiculous to put something out for testing
> as pre-release or release candidate when you already know that it has
> show stoppers. 
> 
nobody claimed the opposite.

> So effectively you agree to the established, traditional naming
>
no

> because your pre releases will never actually get released
>
of course they won't be released, as they are not supposed to be. i
called them "pre" (due to the lack of a better idea), not "pre-release".
well, they are sort of pre-releases, in the sense that they are before
the release, but not that they are the release of something in a
not-yet-releasable state.

> and only the release candidates will be put out.
> 
no, the RCs have a _realistic chance_ to be put out.
#define out "to the 'pure' users"

greetings

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