Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

[Kevin Ottens]

On Monday 19 May 2014 22:28:27 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Speaking as a packager for a distro that's in group #2, I don't see this as
> any change from your initial proposal.

That's correct...

> You're proposal moves us into group #1

... which is what I stated I think.

Chosen extracts:

> > Going forward I see four options for addressing those packagers:
> >  1) Don't care, which means we're pushing them toward the case 1, they'll
> >  release outdated versions with hand picked patches on top;
> >  2) Gain the necessary trust of our downstream to show that our new
> >  releases are not less stable than our former bug fix releases;
> >  3) Provide a yearly LTS branch as I've seen proposed;
> >  4) Provide release branches for which we commit backports.
> > [...]
> > So, even though I understand why it wouldn't please packagers, I don't
> > think we should change course overall. So the tactic we'll follow is (1)
> > hoping to get to (2).
> > Indeed, if we don't change course, I expect the distributions will all
> > move to a scheme of backporting. That's unfortunate, but hopefully, we'll
> > manage to gain the required trust to prove that the releases are not less
> > stable than the former bug fix releases

So it's not that I don't understand, I completely see what will happen at 
first.

Now, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on something. You believe there's 
some rule written in stone somewhere which will make the "everyone will pile 
up backports only" the new status quo forever, I say let's try and find out.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- 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/20140520/c7bbb139/attachment.sig>