Proposal: KDE CVS Commit Policy

[Maks Orlovich]

> 9. Lack of maintenance of the stable release series. Often useful, smaller
>    new features are not backported, while dangerous, untested "code
>    cleanups" are immediately backported. Massively introduced regressions
>    are not being cleaned up in the stable branch and end up in a release
>    (I can't remember a single KDE release where kio_http's proxy support
>    wasn't flawed in one or another way).

A comment on this: I think a related issue is that we don't prioritize which 
bugs we fix first all that well. Some bugs are far more important than others 
for the users. George Staikos has done an amazing (and IMHO much 
under-appreciated) job nagging developers for fixes or at least workarounds 
for the really important things for 3.1.1, but it's not a one-man job to any 
extent - and it'd perhaps make sense to agree to some sort of convention on 
how to mark those bugs. Perhaps just going the critical/grave route and 
relaxing the traditional definitions...

I also think we should be more careful with WORKSFORME closing of bugs -- at 
least some real & serious bugs were closed like that distorting the 
perception of state of things (having a developer think that an existing, and 
serious bug is fixed is pretty dangerous). At the very least, if people from 
2 or 3 different systems/distros report the same issue, it's probably on our 
ends and not packager ends.