Stable branches, including frameworks for Kubuntu LTS

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:53 PM Nicolas Fella <nicolas.fella at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 5/12/26 10:45 PM, 2Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El dimarts, 12 de maig del 2026, a les 20:13:01 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa
> > central), Marco Martin va escriure:
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2026, 18:15 Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> We (as in Techpaladin) pledge to take up the maintenance of such branch as
> >>> long as it's supported, managing backports, testing and releases, as well
> >>> as keeping the new CI nodes green
> >> What do you think about it? Is something that looks sensible on the
> >> upstream/community point of view?
> > Apologies if the next question sounds a bit blunt I didn't figure out how word
> > it in a somewhat better way.
> >
> > Is this something we want to pretend the community is doing?
> >
> > That is, do we want to try to make this "a KDE thing" or is it clearly
> > structured as a Techpaladin/Kubuntu Focus thing?
> >
> > For me the second option makes it "simpler".
> >
> > Then my suggestion would be to just create "vendor" branches like the ones
> > that we have for example in kleopatra/mimetreeparser/friends
> >
> >    gpg4win/23.10
> >    gpg4win/24.05
> >    gpg4win/gpd-5.0
> >    gpg4win/gpd-5.1
> >
> > So create something like kubuntufocus/26.04
> >
> > Maybe it would even make sense to create such branches for KDE Plasma 6.6
> > (after final 6.6.6 is released) and KDE Gear 25.12?
>
> I assume this would be shipped in *upstream* Kubuntu 26.04, not some
> derived version of that?
>
> If that's indeed the case then I'm okay with a more neutral name like
> Frameworks/6.24. Doesn't matter that much who is doing it.
>

I am skeptical of the viability of this. Back in the days when we had
them, Kubuntu didn't ship the point releases anyway because the
updates policy for Kubuntu didn't make it easy for them to do it. And
I have seen no indication from *Kubuntu* that this would change
anytime soon.

Otherwise, I would rather *not* see these branches at all, not as
vendor branches either. It's just a bad idea all around because it
creates confusion for everyone. Even the gpg4win ones create problems.

And as mentioned earlier, this would be a mess if we start having two
separate client requests for long-term KDE stack maintenance because
they're stopping on different points.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!