RFC: Conditions of early access to unreleased

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 00:52:47 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> Bad:
>  * We lose some of the storm since we are "late" to our own release :D

we've also had situations in the past where tarballs have been made, a 
critical problem uncovered, fixes made, a re-roll happens ... and hopefully no 
users have gotten the release.

it is not just a matter of marketing, but making sure that when people get a 
release, it is actually "the" release, and we can't know that until KDE puts 
the rubber stamp on the tarballs and says "here is the official release".

it's a simple matter of coordination.

>  * Do not make the packages available to your users (in stable or
> automatically suggested updates to stable versions) before the official
> tarballs are announced

+1

i also think it would be nice if we could help the distributions become a 
little more relaxed and not quite so pressured to have packages THE DAY OF THE 
RELEASE OMG WTFBBQ!!!11!! many of the most unfortunate results in past years 
have come from pressure to have packages overly quickly: packagers feel 
pressured, competition for pre-releases distorts proper release mechanics, 
etc. i don't know if there is anything upstream can to to make this better for 
packagers (perhaps they can weigh in on this for us as well ..) but i'd love 
to see releases be a much more peaceful and enjoyable time :)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20120604/b77a722a/attachment.sig>