KDE 4.1 planning
Joseph M. Gaffney
CuCullin at WtFisThat.net
Tue Jan 8 20:48:51 CET 2008
John Tapsell wrote:
> On 08/01/2008, Dirk Mueller <mueller at kde.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 08 January 2008, John Tapsell wrote:
>>> If we go for every 9 months and sync in best possible with the main
>>> distros, then it means that there is up to a year between a bug being
>>> fixed and the user being able to get that new version. That's too
>>> long imho.
>> You're entirely wrong in this case. if we go for a 9 month release cycle, we
>> align perfectly with the next after the next distro release. If we go with a
>> 6 month release cycle for 4.1, we don't align to anything and are again just
>> in the middle of nowhere with our bugfix and feature schedule.
> I thought it was obvious that I was talking more long term, rather
> than focusing just on the next release.
> If we go for a 9 month release cycle, then sure we might align with
> the next distro release, but what about the one after that?
If its a 9 month release, worst case is one distribution release without
a new KDE 4.x release right (one including the newest, then one without,
for a 6 month release cycle - no distro I can think is faster than
that). However, many of the others are without a release cycle, some
are 9mos-1yr, etc. With a 6 month release cycle, I would think more
distributions would skip releases than include them. With a 9 month
release cycle, it would likely give a bit more time to spread out
betas/rc's, and be generally inbetween the majority of release schedules
for distros (for those that have them).
Just a thought
More information about the release-team