KDE 3.2 release cycle

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Monday 12 May 2003 09:29, Stephan Binner wrote:
> > From which are 470 due to khtml/kjs (no problem there to confirm much more 
> > with some work, and expect that growing) and 390 are for products not part of 
> > KDE release cycle atm (KOffice, KDevelop, CDRs, Boson, KBear, ...). Your bug
> No, I can handle query.cgi just fine :)
> BTW: if you leave out confirmed wishlist items, you end up with 1242. Which is
> a number you can connect to 1000 much easier, no?

Well, I personally favour the Debian way: packages with
"release-critical" - serious, grave or critical severities - bugs[1] get
excluded[2], there's a concerted effort towards getting rid of all
important-severity bugs, and, of course, all normal-severity bugs.
wishlist bugs are largely left alone in favour of chasing after the
bigger fish.

> > count based release schedule ("release when only 1000 confirmed bugs left")
> > is totally unrealistic. And btw, nothing prevented three KDE 3.1.x releases 
> It's a goal, not a schedule. And you put the quotes around your interpretation not
> my words.

I think maybe a breakdown would be useful here? For example, "Release
when there are under 1500 bugs, at least 30% of which are wishlist ...".
Excluding duplicates could also be useful.

> > with the current amount of open critical and grave bugs. You have to release.
> > 
> > Either switch to a time-based or feature-based release-schedule now.
> Any reason why? I still think that KDE is in a state where features don't bring
> us further, but all these little bugs and misfeatures are those that are missing to
> perfection. So while a time based schedule makes sense as soon as you fixed
> a good share of bugs, I don't want to see a KDE 3.2 that is released just because
> some months passed.

<AOL>. As I've stated earlier, I think that releasing versions which
haven't been properly tested and release-managed is a serious disservice
to our users and, ultimately, ourselves.

The KDE team has obviously worked hard to become the #1 desktop, and I
wouldn't like to see it fall, just because we were over-eager to get the
results of the hard toil out to Joe Public. I'm sure that most users
prefer stability to new, cool, shiny stuff; if they don't, they're
probably capable enough to use CVS.

:) d

[1]: Well, only if they have *more* RC bugs than their predecessor, but
having an RC bug is still a hanging offence.
[2]: It also has to build on all architectures, but that's more or less
immaterial here.

-- 
Daniel Stone 	     <daniel at raging.dropbear.id.au>             <dstone at kde.org>
KDE: Konquering a desktop near you - http://www.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030512/71a18af3/attachment.sig>