[Kst] Bugzilla Versions
nicolas.brisset at free.fr
nicolas.brisset at free.fr
Tue Aug 17 01:30:29 CEST 2010
Hi Peter and others,
I'm still on vacation but with more opportunities to connect to the Internet, so I have taken some time to browse through the list archives.
I'm happy to see so much activity around kst the last days, and a 2.0.0 release! Thanks for the support, it seems you've been very active :-)
I have only a couple of general comments. I'll try to provide real/precise bug reports in the coming days, even though the 2.0.0 version looks quite OK I know of some areas that definitely need more work (undo/redo to name just one). But it's coming along nicely, and the availability of a Windows version is a huge bonus as far as I've seen with my colleagues over the last months.
So, here are the points I think are important:
1) Linux packages: nobody has suggested it but maybe we should use the OpenSUSE build service. It seems a lot of people have started using it and it provides support for all the major distros, not only openSUSE. It is somewhat strange that we'd distribute only Windows packages of a program that started as Linux-only!
2) we definitely need *more press work*. I think this is extremely important in the long run. I've said it a number of times before, but I think kst has far too little mindshare. It is a very good program, powerful and usable, with a great community. But almost nobody knows it! I think the 2.0.0 release is an opportunity to spread the word, we should not miss on it. I suggest discussing the options here, from making the website sexier to possibly changing the name over pretty screencasts and anything that can help!
3) as a direct consequence of 2), we need a roadmap clarifying our relationship to KDE (I also believe kst should stay a(n optionally) KDE application, but let's not go into this discussion now). We need to announce in which direction we'll be going, maybe talk to other similar projects (scidavis for example), etc... In the end users and developers should have a clear vision of where kst is headed.
4) among the bugs you marked as 1.x are some pretty good ideas that still apply to 2.x. I don't know how we can handle that (I don't think bugzilla allows 2 different versions), but there is some sorting out to do. Apart from that I'm OK with the plan you outlined below. I'll try to switch the new features I find important back to 2.x so that we don't forget them, if everybody is OK with that. I don't think we want to do more than minimal maintenance on the 1.x branch now...
All in all I'm pretty excited about all that happened in recent weeks, and I have the feeling that we're on a pretty good track. Let's just hope the weather stays so bad in Germany so that you have nothing better to do than hacking on kst :-)
> > To simplify the reporting of bugs I've removed the
> > 2.0.0_devel version (therefore the 41 emails from bugzilla)
> > and moved all the bugs into the 2.0.0 scope.
> > The ideas is to collect all bugs and wishes of the released
> > 2.0.0 as a 2.0.0 reports, and reports of the unreleases svn
> > version as 2.0.1 because we are working on 2.0.1 now.
> > Then before releasing 2.0.1 we should have a look at all
> > the 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 issues, close them, or move them to the version
> > 2.0.2 when we are not able or willed to fix them with the 2.0.1
> > release.
> > This way, when releasing 2.0.1, we have no open issues in
> > 2.0.0 and 2.0.1 and a clear TODO list for 2.0.2.
> > Does this makes sense, have I overseen anything, or is it
> > maybe totally contrary to the common way of handling bug reports?
> I've also removed the version 'unspecified' because if someone
> specify the Kst version he uses, of what value would be his bug
> Seems most of the Kst 1 reports were handled with the version
> I've changed their version to 1.x.
> Unclosed reports for Kst 1 I've moved for a review to version 1.10.0
> from 1.10.0_devel).
> Now the version list in bugzilla is much more clear with no confusing
> numbers any more.
More information about the Kst