Yet another failed KDE release?

dE . de.techno at
Sat Mar 23 13:08:13 GMT 2013

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Marek Kochanowicz <sirherrbatka at
> wrote:

> On sobota, 23 marca 2013 09:55:42 CEST, dE . wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Myriam Schweingruber <myriam at
>> >wrote:
>>  Hi all,
>>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, dE . <de.techno at> wrote: ...
>> I'm asking the devs to work less and in a relaxed manner, and they've
>> problems with that. Everyone benefits that way. Bugs get fixed, devs are
>> less pressured on.
>> I'ld have absolutely not complained if this was not the 'stable' release,
>> but this's what KDE team calls stable and that's unacceptable.
>>>  There ain't many bug related complaints about Xfce -- it's a lot more
>>>> stable. I personally hardly found any bugs while using it.
>>> Comparing apples with oranges, Xfce has only a fraction of the
>>> software that is shipped with a KDE SC release.
>>> ...
>> Another reason why KDE should have longer release cycle, and another
>> reason
>> for the no. of bugs. Xfce being smaller, has longer releases, they wait
>> for
>> years between major release, just testing it; KDE on the other hand, being
>> many times heavy has shorter release cycles.
>>  ...
>>>>> ... ...
>> You know, that's practically not possible. No one's gonna do it. Instead
>> the DE components should checked for this since the bulk of KDE users
>> upgrade.
>>  ... ...
>> I do that always, unless I misinterpreted the cause of the bug.
>>   ...
>> I'm running on Gentoo, and I've to build the 9999 release for the purpose,
>> which almost never works, and then reverting back becomes very difficult.
>> However I'm using the 'unstable' versions of KDE (relative to Gentoo,
>> according to which 4.9.5 is sable). This's solely for the purpose of
>> reporting bugs; but they almost never get fixed by the final stable
>> release.
>> The best way to test is constant usability testing cause bugs never come
>> up
>> when you're searching for them; they come up when you seriously use it for
>> your real tasks.
>>> Regards, Myriam
>>> PS. And BTW, you might have seen that we all sing with our names, how
>>> about signing your mails? Or is this on purpose to do anonymous
>>> ramblings? I am not going to call you what Slashdot would, though.
>> I prefer to remain anon. And I go by this name only.
> Actually I think that you may be right, although I use 4.10.1 and I think
> it is a great and no new bugs encountred so far (pager works fine). At the
> moment KDE 4.9.5 is really feature complete and fully usable, there is no
> need since 4.6.5 to rush quickly with development cycle. 2 years is very
> long time but if 6 months is not enough then It should be elongated.

Longer release cycles ensure the thing gets tested on various platforms in
various ways, fixing bugs which otherwise developers won't notice.

As of the current time, release cycles are too fast; distro devs don't have
time to provide betas for official testing, and even if they do, it'll only
exist for a few weeks, or maybe a month, so they don't care.

The RC1 tags atlest should last 4 or 5 months so it easily enters the
official unstable (testing/keyworded/beta etc...) repository so people can
test it, and atleast devs should be given enough time to remove regressions
without hindering their personal lives and work.

There's very less time focused on testing; that should be increased, and
there's really no reason to hurry releases, no one complained KDE is empty
and featureless, but a lot complain about it's bugs and stability. This
should point to something.

Sorry:This discussion is getting a bit heavy, I'll take some time to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management:
More info:

More information about the kde mailing list