More Plasma bug fix releases

Thu Oct 29 07:18:58 UTC 2015

Am 2015-10-28 21:11, schrieb Sandro Knauß:
> But there is also debian stable (also kubuntu LTS,...), that most users 
> are
> using. And debian stable is time based, and no updates are allowd by 
> default.

Debian stable should not be affected by the proposal. I doubt it will 
ever ship a .0 or a .1 release. In fact it's more likely that it will 
ship a version we already consider EOL.

> For me the patch tracker is nothing, because I do not trust you as 
> mantainer
> of KWin. I see it more as meta informations about patches, to be able 
> to use
> it as argument for pushing things more easily futher down to the user.

As sebas notes: we have these information in the BUG field of git. 
Although there are commits without a BUG field, just because we didn't 
report an internal bug for it. If this is a requirement for you distros, 
then we can of course create a bug report for each one.

Otherwise I hope that you trust that we only fix bugs in our stable 
branch.

> 
> Also one note: On debian side it is like that, every diff against 
> debian
> stable is reviewed by the release team, so the diff must close serious 
> bugs
> and should be as minimal as possible (but this should a stable fix 
> anyhow :)

So I understand correctly, that someone having no clue about the source 
code, having no clue about the domain and having no clue how sever the 
bug is, is going to decide whether it's a serious issue. I don't think I 
have to explain to you how broken that is on multiple levels. This is 
just ridiculous. Sorry I have no other words for it.

Cheers
Martin

> 
> Regards,
> 
> sandro
> 
> --
> Am Mittwoch, 28. Oktober 2015, 00:52:34 schrieb Albert Astals Cid:
>> El Tuesday 27 October 2015, a les 15:31:45, Eric Hameleers va 
>> escriure:
>> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> > > El Tuesday 27 October 2015, a les 14:39:15, Eric Hameleers va escriure:
>> > >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> > >>> El Tuesday 27 October 2015, a les 14:18:01, Eric Hameleers va
> escriure:
>> > >>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 06:25:42 AM Eric Hameleers wrote:
>> > >>>>>> I like the idea of getting more visibility for bugfixes that will
>> > >>>>>> give
>> > >>>>>> the enduser a better Plasma experience. Ideal for me would be a
>> > >>>>>> patch
>> > >>>>>> tracker (not the same as a bug tracker) where intermediate patches
>> > >>>>>> are
>> > >>>>>> made available that are scheduled for inclusion in the next
>> > >>>>>> release.
>> > >>>>>> That allows me as a package builder to assimilate those patches if
>> > >>>>>> I
>> > >>>>>> think they can not wait until the next release.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> That sounds like you just want the latest stable git branch, in this
>> > >>>>> example Plasma/5.5?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> No, of course not. I consider the git branch to be in eternal flux.
>> > >>>> The git HEAD may contain valuable usability patches but also other
>> > >>>> meh
>> > >>>> stuff that can wait until the next major release. I do not want to
>> > >>>> dig
>> > >>>> through hashes and commits to find out whether you solved some
>> > >>>> blocking issue.
>> > >>>> A patch tracker, containing patches you (the developers) consider
>> > >>>> critical and which should find their way to the user ASAP, that is a
>> > >>>> place where I would look.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Yes, of course yes.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Every single patch commited to a stable branch is a bugfix and thus
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> developer considers critical and should be released as soon as
>> > >>> possible
>> > >>> to
>> > >>> users, otherwise instead of to the stable branch the developer would
>> > >>> commited the patch to the development branch.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Cheers,
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  Albert
>> > >>
>> > >> You developers are so funny, my false teeth fell out from shaking.
>> > >
>> > > I did a serious reply to your comment and all i got back was sarcasm,
>> > > please let's try to be constructive, otherwise what's the point of
>> > > having
>> > > this discussions?
>> > >
>> > > Do you really think we commit things that are not bugfixes to stable
>> > > branches?
>> > >
>> > > Can you name some "meh stuff" that was commited to a stable branch and
>> > > in
>> > > your opinion should have waited for the next major release?
>> >
>> > Says the master of sarcasm.
>> 
>> The fact that i may have been not well behaved at some points in the 
>> past
>> does not give anyone carte blanche to be badly behaved, two bads don't 
>> make
>> one good.
>> 
>> > I was being constructive. Please put on
>> > your release management hat.
>> >
>> > But you are indeed correct, I should adjust one of my statements, by
>> > s/major/minor/ ; patches should not have to wait for the next
>> > *major* release.
>> 
>> That's why we have stable releases, no?
>> 
>> > However, I id not interpret your reply as anywhere near serious. If
>> > your view of distro packaging is that the packager should follow the
>> > git commits from day to day, minute to minute then you need to adjust
>> > your view of distro development. It is OK for *developers* to sit on
>> > top of the git commits since that is what they do. A packager on the
>> > other hand needs proper releases, because that makes the
>> > user's experience of the distro deterministic and will add the
>> > developer in triaging the bug reports because he knows what source
>> > went into the distro. If the developer wants to push critical
>> > patches downstream, then the developer still wants deterministic
>> > behaviour from the binaries produced by the distros and therefore a
>> > proper patch-release management is crucial.
>> 
>> I didn't say distro packagers do not need a release, neither i did say 
>> that
>> distro packagers should follow git.
>> 
>> In fact, I (and i'd say Sebas too) understood you were the one 
>> suggesting
>> that.
>> 
>> You said you wanted a patch tracker with all the fixes on top a 
>> release.
>> 
>> Sebas and me said that such a patch tracker is exactly what the stable
>> branch is (as far as I understand it).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>   Albert
>> 
>> > Cheers, Eric
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> release-team mailing list
>> release-team at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
> 
> _______________________________________________
> release-team mailing list
> release-team at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team