[Kmymoney-devel] Current status and issues for a release

[Cristian Oneţ]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Alvaro Soliverez <asoliverez at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Cristian Oneţ <onet.cristian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Alvaro Soliverez <asoliverez at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Cristian Oneţ <onet.cristian at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Alvaro Soliverez
>> >> <asoliverez at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > to change the version number to 3.95 (which would be the official
>> >> >> > version
>> >> >> > number for the release)
>> >> >> Do we really need to go that high with the version number. I would
>> >> >> suggest adopting 1.2 for the KDE4 ported version. I say this because
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> don't think there will be more than one release on the KDE3 branch
>> >> >> (so
>> >> >> that could be 1.1). Once the KDE4 version is done we should really
>> >> >> let
>> >> >> go of the <1.2 branch. We should stick with the kmymoney version
>> >> >> scheme so there is no need to jump to 3.95.
>> >> >
>> >> > The idea is to bump the final version number to 4, that's why.
>> >> OK, I'm going to insist a bit on this. Why is the final version going
>> >> to be bumped to 4? Why shouldn't we continue using KMyMoney versions
>> >> (in a continuous way)? I see no reason to bump to version 4 unless we
>> >> adopt the KDE4 release schedule but the it should be 4.4 doesn't it?
>> >>
>> > I don't remember when we had this discussion, but the version number has
>> > been 3.95 for some time already. Check the about box, that's why I took
>> > as a
>> > fact that the beta version is going to be 3.95. We mentioned it when
>> > talking
>> > about keeping the name and dropping the '2', or at least I think so.
>> I remember that Thomas committed this version number but I don't know
>> why he had chosen 3.95 maybe he can shed a bit of light on this.
>
> Thomas can provide more detail on this. It was at a time when we were
> discussing the name change (long before the current discussion) and at that
> time we agreed to leave it as it was, but bump the version number to 4, to
> make it fit the KDE version.
>
> Leaving that apart, I wouldn't call it version 1.2 because there have been
> major changes, if not in features in the sheer amount of code that's been
> changed since the KDE3 version. So, it deserves at least a major version
> change. Making it version 2 after we just dropped the 2 from name would make
> it confusing. And then we come to 3, which resembles KDE3, meaning more
> confusion. To me, version 4 makes the most sense.
Well OK then, when I was suggesting 1.2 I was looking at the
application from an external point of view (feature-wise there aren't
any significant changes).

>>
>> > I think we should be adjusting to a KDE release schedule, but we are
>> > going
>> > to have a couple of versions before that. So, whenever the time comes to
>> > release together with KDE, we drop our own version number and use KDE's
>> > (4.5, 4.6 at the time?).
>> Looking back at KMyMoney's release cycle wouldn't the KDE release
>> cycle be a bit short for the speed of development?
>>
> Actually, the speed of development is quite high. I have put together the
> release notes for the latest releases and it wasn't easy to decide what to
> include from all the stuff in there.
>
> Since version 0.9.0, we have been releasing every ~6 months:
> 0.9.0 - May 2008
> 0.9.2 - September 2008 - 4 months after 0.9.0 - There was no 0.9.0
> 0.9.3 - February 2009 - 5 months after 0.9.2
> 1.0.0 - August 2009 - 6 months after 0.9.3
>
> Look at the change log for each release and you'll see we had a quite
> interesting number of features for each release.
> Having a 6-month release cycle fits quite well with our speed of
> development, at least in my view.
Looking at it that way it's OK. but if you take a look between 0.8 and
0.9? And I somehow got the impression that only the even number
releases were declared user versions. Wasn't 0.9 a development
version?
But I can live with the KDE release cycle I was just asking some questions :).