Future frameworks releases

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday 25 June 2015 16:02:44 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2015 23.01:41 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 June 2015 11:14:28 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > I don't think you've been disrespectful. I guess that was the limit of my
> > metaphor which carried this feeling... turns out my footnote was better in
> > that regard. You've been obstinate though, but clearly you've not been
> > alone with that trait. :-)
> 
> Alright, that's fine then. I think I have to be a bit obstinate in this
> situation, but I really don't want to piss people off, which is sometimes
> difficult to handle via email.

Tell me about it...
 
> > BTW, I'd like to point out, because I think was not clear in that regard
> > earlier. That personally I don't mind if we decide single version vs
> > multiple versions. I see pros and cons in both.
> > 
> > What I'd like though is that either we go in one direction (different
> > versions as the norm), or the other (status quo), but we don't go for "A,
> > B and C do that while X, Y, Z does something else". It's what I tried to
> > point with "weird exceptions" earlier and failed.
> 
> Ok, with that I can agree. I'm glad to hear you're opinion isn't set in
> stone on that topic, because that's what I (mistakenly) extracted from your
> previous responses.

Yeah, that's what I thought, and that's what I meant by it was probably 
unclear. I realized late that when I beat the drum of "consistency" it could 
be taken by mistake for "version numbers have to be consistent". For me what's 
important is that the rules we apply are consistent but they could result in 
different version numbers in the end, as long as everyone has the same 
treatment I'm fine.

That said seeing David's reply to my previous email it then opens the door to 
the big fat cons which is "dependency hell" as he defines it.

> Since I'm currently swamped with work I'll have to put this on the
> back-burner for the moment, and as suggested we can pick this up during
> akademy.

Yes, we've been dragging this topic far too long... to a point where Akademy 
isn't that far anymore so it looks like a proper place to handle it now.
 
> Until then I can also do some more preparation to explain the specific
> requirements better, and with that we can hopefully devise a solution that
> works for everyone.

At least we get a chance of properly sharing where the pain points are and 
what should be optimized or lived with. In any case it'll get us in a better 
place than we're right now with that discussion.

Cheers.
-- 
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: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20150626/25d4b4bd/attachment.sig>