Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

[Scott Kitterman]

On May 4, 2014 4:25:25 AM EDT, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org> wrote:
>On Wednesday 30 April 2014 21:56:12 Alexander Neundorf 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.
>> 
>> maybe not among developers...
>> But all normal users who just install KDE from some distro are users
>of the
>> stable branches.
>
>I think Alex meant something different: the branch does not have any
>testers 
>before it's rolled to the users. Which means that regressions are not
>caught 
>before they hit the users.

At least for Kubuntu, the amount of upstream testing is well understood. We do a fair amount of testing before releasing to our end users. 

More upstream testing would, of course, be lovely, but I don't see the current situation as particularly problematic. 

>From my point of view, point releases are very much tested before being released to end users. 

Scott K