Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin at kde.org
Wed Apr 30 12:39:31 UTC 2014

On Wednesday 30 April 2014 08:24:43 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:35:54 Àlex Fiestas wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 April 2014 19:23:07 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > We'll, I guess, have to settle for cherry picking fixes and doing our
> > > best.
> > 
> > You might not know this but most developers don't do proper testing in the
> > stable branches because the cost of having master and stable environments
> > and doing testing in both branches for each fix is too much, we simply
> > don't have the manpower for that.
> > 
> > History has shown this maaaany times, we have done point releases that
> > were
> > horrible quality-wise because nobody was testing them. The stable branches
> > have virtually no users.
> > 
> > I have been told by you (at UDS) and by many others packagers that our
> > point releases suck, that we introduce huge regressions etc. The above
> > paragraph explains the reason.
> > 
> > We have to be realistic here, upstream does NOT have the manpower to
> > maintain more than one release.
> > 
> > So, I honestly think that if we work together you can do a better work
> > cherry- picking than we can. Also we should develop tools to make your
> > life
> > easier.
> We test the point releases before we ship them to end users.  Sometimes we
> find regressions.  It happens.  I'm pretty sure I didn't say the suck. 
> I've invested a lot of hours of my free time both getting approval to ship
> them post release and packaging them as well.  I wouldn't have done that if
> I thought they sucked.
> I'm well aware of the amount of testing the stable branches get.  That's why
> we do the testing we do before we ship them.  I can't recall the last time
> we had end user complaints of a regression after a stable update has been
> released to end users.
> I think the best tool to make our life easier would be maintenance branches.
> If you only want to have one every 3 - 6 KF5 releases, fine.

I know that this is a change from how it is right now: but wouldn't it be 
better if those who are interested do these branches? Let's face it whatever 
we do upstream cannot suite all of our downstreams at the same time.

And please remember: this is only about frameworks, not about the applications 
or the workspace.

-------------- 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/20140430/aa66914e/attachment.sig>

More information about the release-team mailing list