Release Team BoF Summary

[David Faure]

On Friday 13 July 2012 13:54:23 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 07:44:38 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El Divendres, 13 de juliol de 2012, a les 14:31:35, Aurélien Gâteau va
> > 
> > escriure:
> > > Le jeudi 12 juillet 2012 20:43:12 Albert Astals Cid a écrit :
> > > > So here comes the summary of the Release Team BoF, the attached
> > > > picture
> > > > is
> > > > all we wrote during the BoF itself so all written here is me trying to
> > > > remember what we said, if any of the presents disagrees or remembers
> > > > more,
> > > > please do not hesitate to comment.
> > > 
> > > Something which we discussed in the KDE Quality BoF and is of interest
> > > to
> > > the KDE Release Team is the numbering of unstable versions.
> > > 
> > > Up to now we have been using 4.N.8* and 4.N.9* for alpha, beta and rc.
> > > The
> > > problem with those is it is difficult when you get a report on 4.8.85 to
> > > know if the user is running beta1, beta2, rc1 or something else.
> > > 
> > > To address this we proposed the following numbering scheme:
> > > 
> > > 4.N.7{1,2,3} => N+1 alpha 1, 2, 3
> > > 4.N.8{1,2,3} => N+1 beta 1, 2, 3
> > > 4.N.9{1,2,3} => N+1 rc 1, 2, 3
> > > 
> > > With this scheme, 4.10 alpha 1 would be 4.9.71, 4.10 beta 2 would be
> > > 4.9.82
> > 
> > This helps with remembering but breaks our "traditions", to be honest i
> > don't care, any other opinion?
> 
> I don't see the benefit, but I don't (as  Kubuntu packager) see any harm. 
> As long as it's communicated in advance so users know, I don't think it
> matters (this gives me a slight bias towards the status quo).  Those
> version numbers don't mean anything special for us from a packaging point
> of view.

Right. They do help for bug triaging and bug fixing, so I'm very much in favour 
of more readability in the version numbers.

Traditions are no reason not to improve.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. KDE Frameworks 5