The case for a kdelibs 4.8

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday, September 29, 2011 23:57:53 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I don't like the fact that KDE developers decided to ignore their own policy
> on maintenance updates.  I think it breaks your contract with your
> downstreams.  In the case of what's been done so far, it doesn't have an
> impact on us.  The changes were in before our release and are technically

the features that got into the 4.7 branch to date have been things that were 
already worked on before the Frameworks decision was made. it's was an odd cas 
were features had been worked on while 4.7 was frozen with the expectation of 
a 4.8 ... and that left us with the choice of having a 4.8 release which we 
didn't want for those few features, leaving those features out and screwing up 
the planning of the applications depending on those changes or fudging a 
little bit.

it was a compromise choice made to mimize downside. as with all such 
compromises, it isn't perfect (ergo the label of 'compromise'), but after 
looking at the issues and looking at different scenarios we decided this was 
the best option available to us compared to the others.

note that some of the more actively changing and developed code in kdelibs 
have moved to separate git repositories already to make this issue moot for 
them (kactivities, nepomuk)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20110930/ac7dfaff/attachment.sig>