Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

[Kevin Ottens]

On Tuesday 20 May 2014 08:00:43 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 08:04:59 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > 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  release outdated versions with hand picked patches on top;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.
> 
> I make no prediction about other distros, only mine.  You started this go at
> the topic by saying that packagers don't understand what developers deal
> with and developers don't understand what packagers deal with and we had to
> try and cross that bridge.  Given that you're on the developer end of that
> divide, why do you keep insisting you know better what will happen in my
> distro that I do?

I never said I knew better, actually I'm pretty sure I don't. OTOH I'm sure 
that polarizing the situation as much isn't going to help figure out the real 
outcome.

Also, I happen to have discussed with other packagers[*] before sending the 
email of yesterday who have a different opinion than you do, so it can't be 
labeled as our fate yet. Especially since we generally tend to do a bad job at 
predictions.

Regards.

[*] Some of them working on the same distribution than you.
-- 
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/20140520/61a17f56/attachment.sig>