4.5 Release Schedule

[toma]

+----------------------------------------+
|    ------- original message -------    |
| from:     toma at kde.org                 |
| to:       steveire at gmail.com           |
| subject:  RE: Re: 4.5 Release Schedule |
| date:     18-04-2010 20:46             |
+----------------------------------------+

> ---------------------------------------------+
> |       ------- original message -------       |
> | from:     Stephen Kelly [steveire at gmail.com] |
> | to:       release-team at kde.org               |
> | subject:  Re: 4.5 Release Schedule           |
> | date:     13-04-2010 10:19                   |
> +----------------------------------------------+
> 
> > toma wrote:
> > 
> > > Final problem we had this cycle was changing dependencies until late in
> > > the schedule. So we added a dependency freeze at the hard feature freeze
> > > time. People should by then know what they want to add as features for
> > > that cycle and think about the dependencies they need. During the
> > > dependency freeze it is not allowed to introduce new dependencies or raise
> > > the version of existing dependencies.
> > 
> > I agree with the existence of a dependency freeze, but not allowing the use 
> > of newer versions of existing dependencies happens before even a beta 
> > release. If there are bugs in dependencies fixed in patch-level releases 
> > distros will ship the new patch level release anyway, right? 
> 
> The dependency freeze is one week before tagging beta 1. I'm sure we all agree that one week for packagers to package all the right dependencies is about the minimum we can do. If you want it at beta 1 time, it means that one day before tagging we can bump dependencies, meaning distro's need to pack that dependency and kde in one week. I don't want to go there.
> 
> > Or does that apply only to major.minor releases, and not patch releases?
> 
> No.
> 
> > I 
> > think patch level versions are generally not checked for in CMakeLists 
> > files.
> 
> That's a technical discussion, that is not relevant in this discussion.
> 
> Toma