Dirk Mueller mueller at kde.org
Wed May 7 22:59:36 CEST 2008

On Wednesday 30 April 2008, Allen Winter wrote:

> But you are correct that I am probably providing way
> too many details that most of the list really doesn't care about.
> The point is: we need to be prepared to either 1) not have
> a kdepim 4.1 or 2) for several kdepim apps to be disabled/removed.

I don't see the reason for this fatalistic approach. I think we'd be good to 
go by going with the "no regressions" approach. As long as an application 
isn't really noticably worse than it was previously, it is still fine to 
ship. even small improvements are better than not shipping something (release 
early, release often). As we didn't have kdepim in 4.0, there are not an 
awful lot of ways to be worse than that, right?

Given that KDE 4.0.0 really lowered the expectation barrier quite a bit, 
there's not a whole lot to be concerned about, except that we should try to 
be better than we were before. Proving that we're on track, rather than that 
we reached to goal, to put it differently. 

Please keep in mind that removing/disabling an application is a clear message 
to any kind of possible contributor to go look for somewhere else to play, in 
addition if its done in a unprofessional way even scare away whoever 
previously considered himself to be the maintainer. 

Perhaps we need a more clear indication of apps that are considered 
unmaintained and are calling for help. (like a ktip dialog perhaps during 
startup, an indication in the about dialog.. or something like that). 


More information about the release-team mailing list