zack at kde.org
Tue Dec 1 01:21:15 CET 2009
On Monday 30 November 2009 19:10:31 David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Zack Rusin wrote:
> >On Tuesday 01 December 2009, David Faure wrote:
> > > Yep, seems to work now.
> > >
> > > BUT: this code was committed at the worst possible time (*very* close
> > > to beta1 tagging) and without review, breaking the freeze.
> > > And obviously (from your own words) it's impossible to be sure the code
> > > doesn't introduce any regressions. Can you revert it for now and commit
> > > it again a month from now when trunk is open for kde-4.5?
> > > I don't want to think about what will happen if we ship 4.4 with
> > > infinite loops in some languages :/
> > To be honest I'm not sure if that makes much sense. If the code breaks
> > something, then well it breaks something and if you don't have enough
> > tests you most likely have to wait for a beta for it to be tested by
> > general public. So yea, we can revert it and then let it sit and wait for
> > kde-4.5 beta so that it's tested then or we can let it be tested with
> > kde-4.4 beta. The code was broken for years, it just happened to work in
> > enough cases for english, german and other latin languges which meant
> > that no one cared enough about the other few billion people on the planet
> > to fix it, at least now breakage in this breaks all languages equally.
> > Of course at the end of the day it's your call and if it will make you
> > sleep better at night then sure revert it.
> What the above logic skips over, is the large period of testing between
> "kde 4.5 is open for commits" (a month from now or so) and "kde-4.5-beta1".
> In general, the reason for freezes like the current one, is that code
> committed in the above interval will get also a lot of testing by us (kde
> developers) before it gets to users. But I can see how locale-dependent
> code is a bit of a special case since we won't test all languages
> ourselves (I don't even use kde in french myself...), so the code has to
> get to end users in order to be tested. From a practical point of view I'm
> ok with letting this in then. But I can also understand if the
> release-team decides it should be reverted because it didn't play by the
> rules and sets a bad example.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
If you'll decide to revert it, fire me an email when the trunk opens to remind
More information about the release-team