Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

[Àlex Fiestas]

On Tuesday 29 April 2014 21:54:17 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 29, 2014 7:30:50 PM EDT, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> >El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 19:23:07, Scott Kitterman va
> >
> >escriure:
> >> On April 29, 2014 2:07:52 PM EDT, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org>
> >
> >wrote:
> >> >El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 19:55:42, Andreas K. Huettel
> >
> >va
> >
> >> >escriure:
> >> >> > El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 15:04:59, Andreas K.
> >
> >Huettel
> >
> >> >va
> >> >
> >> >> > escriure:
> >> >> > > Practically this just means that what used to be the stable
> >> >
> >> >branch now
> >> >
> >> >> > > becomes the distribution patch collection.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > No, it means that you use the next release as you would do now
> >> >
> >> >since it
> >> >
> >> >> > will have the bug you found fixed, or do you guys have a
> >> >
> >> >distribution
> >> >
> >> >> > patch collection for firefox?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Bad example, our stable users are running Firefox Extended Support
> >> >
> >> >Release.
> >> >
> >> >> (There still is a patch collection, which afaics however mostly
> >> >
> >> >targets arch
> >> >
> >> >> compatibility (alpha, freebsd), library unbundling and build
> >
> >system
> >
> >> >fixes.)
> >> >
> >> >Ok, then ignore the example, as said, you would just update to the
> >
> >next
> >
> >> >release that fixes all the bugs anyway that you would want to
> >> >distro-patch
> >> >anyway.
> >> 
> >> For non-rolling distros, at some point you have to stop and release.
> >
> >A mix
> >
> >> of new features and bug fixes aren't going to be allowed in.
> >> 
> >> We (Kubuntu) have been delivering KDE SC point releases as
> >
> >post-release
> >
> >> updates to our users for most (maybe all) KDE4 releases. That's over
> >
> >with
> >
> >> KF5.
> >
> >For Ubuntu I can use the Firefox example. So can you explain why is KF5
> >different than firefox?
> 
> Firefox (and Chromium too) are handled like no other packages in the
> archive.  It's the best known (to average computer users) FOSS brand. 
> There's not much choice but to ship it and given the combination of library
> bundling and the presence of security fixes in essentially every release
> there's no realistic choice but to eat releases whole (despite viewing the
> necessity as being highly distasteful).  Canonical has also funded
> significant engineering resources to maintain Ubuntu Firefox packages and
> do extensive regression testing.
> 
> None of the above is relevant to KF5.
So basically we have to become more relevant to get one of this exceptions? 

> If I were to ask for the kind of update policy Ubuntu has for Firefox, I am
> pretty sure it would get laughed out of the room.  I've gotten exceptions
> approved for quite a number of packages, so I think I have a reasonable
> basis to form an opinion on what's likely to be approved.
> 
> The KF5 plan amounts to "Non-rolling distros: you're on your own."
Not really, the plan is the following:
Update frameworks all the times since it will make everybody life easier and 
will improve quality (we strongly believe that, if not we wouldn't do it).

A non rolling-distro can do this without problems, we are not asking you to 
update the entire stack, we are only asking to update the frameworks.

The update process is up to you, you could have it 1 month on review and 
deliver updates every 2 months and things like that, plus if we work together 
and give you great tools you could do backporting of your own.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20140430/6d6c9198/attachment.sig>