Release Cycle

Wed Aug 28 20:52:17 UTC 2013

On Friday 23 August 2013 22:10:32 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Divendres, 23 d'agost de 2013, a les 08:49:19, Jos Poortvliet va 
escriure:
> > On Thursday 22 August 2013 23:35:49 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > El Dijous, 22 d'agost de 2013, a les 08:07:22, Jos Poortvliet va 
escriure:
> > > > On Tuesday 20 August 2013 22:40:29 Mark wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > > > El Dimarts, 20 d'agost de 2013, a les 01:54:48, Albert Astals Cid
> > > > > > va
> > > > 
> > > > escriure:
> > > > > >> El Dimarts, 20 d'agost de 2013, a les 01:17:18, Aaron J. Seigo va
> > > > 
> > > > escriure:
> > > > > >> > On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 00:24:53 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > > >> > > El Dilluns, 19 d'agost de 2013, a les 22:18:26, Aaron J.
> > > > > >> > > Seigo
> > > > > >> > > va
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> escriure:
> > > > > >> > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 22:14:26 Albert Astals Cid 
wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > There will be a 4.13? Most probably.
> > > > > >> > > > > Will it be in 2014? For sure
> > > > > >> > > > > Which month? Noone knows, you can probably guess it'll 
be
> > > > > >> > > > > between
> > > > > >> > > > > Q2
> > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > Q3
> > > > > >> > > > > since Q1 would mean <= 3 months of development and Q4
> > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > mean
> > > > > >> > > > > 
> > > > > >> > > > > >=
> > > > > >> > > > > 
> > > > > >> > > > > 10
> > > > > >> > > > > months.
> > > > > >> > > > 
> > > > > >> > > > unless we change the development cycle, which has not yet
> > > > > >> > > > been
> > > > > >> > > > done,
> > > > > >> > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > month will 4.13 be in?
> > > > > >> > > 
> > > > > >> > > Are you disagreeing with the 4.12 schedule?
> > > > > >> > 
> > > > > >> > No; however, on
> > > > > >> > http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/KDE4/4.12_Release_Schedule 
it
> > > > > >> > says
> > > > > >> > “THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL YET” four times right at the top. I was
> > > > > >> > under
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > impression that it was still being discussed and wasn’t ... you
> > > > > >> > know
> > > > > >> > ..
> > > > > >> > official yet.
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> It will be official when i get tired of waiting for people to
> > > > > >> oppose
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> it.
> > > > > >> If it makes you happier, I can declare it official now.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There you go.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   Albert
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> Well, not now, i'm going to sleep now.
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> Cheers,
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >>   Albert
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> release-team mailing list
> > > > > >> release-team at kde.org
> > > > > >> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > release-team mailing list
> > > > > > release-team at kde.org
> > > > > > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
> > > > > 
> > > > > What you just did means that KDE SC 4.12 will in fact be a 5 month
> > > > > release cycle. Earlier there was talk about outlining the future
> > > > > releases. That blog/news item is probably going to have to take the
> > > > > new 5 month cycle into account.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes. What about this then:
> > > > =======
> > > > KDE frameworks 5 preview 1 December 2013
> > > > KDE frameworks 5 release 1st half 2014
> > > > KDE Workspaces 4.11 is last release (LTS)
> > > > KDE Workspaces 2.0 preview 1st half 2014
> > > > KDE Workspaces 2.0 release 2nd half 2014
> > > > KDE Applications 4.12 December 18 2013
> > > > KDE Applications 4.13 June 2014
> > > 
> > > 4.12 and 4.13 will include kdelibs too (that have been almost-frozen for
> > > a
> > > while but we still increase its version number on each release)
> > > 
> > > Also we don't have a date for 4.13.
> > > 
> > > It may well be May or July or even March or August since we haven't
> > > started
> > > planning for it and we can't do it since at Akademy it was agreed we'd
> > > do
> > > a
> > > shorter cycle (4.12) and then evaluate if that had worked or not, and to
> > > evaluate it, we have to let 4.12 happen.
> > > 
> > > So please be very clear June is a guessed month from your side since the
> > > Release Team has not started discussing about it.
> > 
> > "As with any schedule for a major technological transition, please note
> > that the above is subject to change."
> 
> Are you saying 4.13 is "a major technological transition"?

Really, is that a serious question or are you now just arguing to argue? 
Sjees. It obviously refers to the schedule. Which includes the change to 
Frameworks 5, Plasma Workspaces 2 etcetera. And yes, those are 'major 
technological transitions' and yes, I doubt anyone would not get that that has 
influence on the scheduling. Can we move on please?

> > Is that enough? Please note, as Aaron already said, that it is better to
> > have a plan now and change it later than to have no plan at all.
> 
> That is his opinion, not the one that seems the majority of people in this
> team have.

What 'team' are we talking about here, the marketing team or the release team? 
I don't know the opinion of the latter, but from a marketing pov I doubt 
anybody would argue that it does not look better to have a plan and change it 
than to have no planning at all.

If you have arguments, use them. If not, well, let's do what we proposed 
please.

> Saying we have no plan not true. Our plan is do 4.13 planning once 4.12 is
> out of of the door, like we have been doing for all the releases for a
> while.

No, we were on a 6 month release cycle. While not every single date was fixed, 
everybody assumed the next release would come 6 months later. Changing that - 
fine, especially in the light of the big changes taking place anyway (libs 
frozen for a while, Workspaces now also frozen). Stating that we want to 
evaluate that change after the cycle - sure. But none of that is a reason not 
to state some kind of intent for what to do after that. And as I think that 
that is beneficial, I'd like to do that.

> Cheers,
>   Albert
-------------- 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/20130828/f2075a91/attachment.sig>