Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

[Scott Kitterman]

On May 20, 2014 8:27:39 AM EDT, Kevin Ottens <ervin at kde.org> wrote:
>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  release outdated versions with hand picked patches on top;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.

That's how it comes across to me.  There was a lot of negative feedback the first time and the reaction to that comes across to me as a patronizing repetition of the initial proposal wrapped up in IMO unfounded assurances that it would be fine. 

Sorry if it comes across as harsh. I actually waited half a day to calm down before I replied. 

>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.

None of them are the one that did the work to get our current approval to ship KDE point releases post-release.   

If they feel differently though they should say so publicly. I'm not going to argue with anonymous theories channeled through you (or through anyone).

Scott K