KDE/kdebase/runtime/platforms/win

[Dmitry Suzdalev]

Hi John, others!

On Friday 01 January 2010 00:59:01 John Layt wrote:
> I would note in my defence that I have been sticking to only the simplest
> of fixes and avoiding anything that might affect functionality.  What
> actually broke, I'm guessing the includes?
Apart from win compilation I guess you broke nothing :)

Let me repeat myself: I really think that this is a great thing you did with 
fixing krazy issues, my conserns were only about touching some core 
functionality while approaching the release.

And about "minor fixes" argumentation: I just really had several experiences 
when "totally tiny and trivial, can't EVER break anything" commits were 
introducing a weirdest bugs in a release. This comes mostly from my commercial 
software development background where such issues introduce a real PITA for 
all departments - that's why I have such reaction :) Maybe in KDE SC case it's 
not that hard, but still....

Well, it seems this time it went well - or I guess someone would already 
complain :)
 
> If they were
> interested, then they would have fixed them already :-)  The major stuff I
> leave for them to fix themselves, but few do.
Agreed. krazy fixes often are out of attention of the maintainers, so it's 
really good that someone keeps an eye on them, thanks :)

> December 16th, 2009: Tag KDE SC 4.4 Beta 2
> "... Only urgent fixes, such as those fixing compilation errors, should be
> committed..."
Hmm, this one seems like an error to me: what's the point in Beta2 if not 
fixing more bugs? :)

> 
> January 5th, 2010: Tag KDE SC 4.4 RC 1
> "... Only urgent fixes, such as those fixing compilation errors, should be
> committed..."
Same here. I suppose that bug fixes should be allowed. In this case (rc1) 
maybe only critical ones, not sure. release team should have a word here :)

> I agree a blanket ban on krazy fixes before RC1 would be too extreme. 
> Fixes for incorrect licenses, missing copyright tags, spelling mistakes in
> comments, apidox, etc, should still be OK.  Perhaps something for Beta 2
> like 'Krazy fixes not affecting code may be applied if approved by 2
> reviewers, including the maintainer where possible.  Krazy fixes affecting
> code are not permitted".
+1

Cheers,
Dmitry.

P.S. Maybe there were already answers on a release-team list, I'm not 
subscribed, so sorry if i'm overlapping with something already said :)