Clarification on requirements for a release

[Ben Cooksley]

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it> wrote:
> On Monday, 3 July 2017 17:15:19 CEST Harald Sitter wrote:
>> the phab task is marked private.
>>
>> on a general note I do not think this was ever discussed or agreed
>> upon and makes no sense (how the heck is a playground project meant to
>> evolve if it can't do bloody pre releases...).
>>
>> making production releases from playground is not advisable because
>> a) playground was not peer-reviewed through kdereview and
>> b) for reasons I do not know playground projects cannot have stable
>> translations, so you couldn't do maintenance releases afterwards
>> without jumping through hoops to retain
>
> Because playground is not supposed to have production releases, as you wrote
> above, so we never tracked or enabled translations for playground. It's part
> of the workflow.

Software which lives in Extragear/Applications/Frameworks/Plasma
should also not be depending on Playground software as well.

>
>
>>
>> even so there's plenty of stuff releasing from playground, which I'll
>> argue is their business. just at a glance I am seeing like 10 projects
>> that have production releases but live in playground.
>
> Can you please list it, so we can fix them instead of keeping this a self-
> fulfilling prophecy?

I'd like to see that list as well.
I see pretty much all the releases which get made and i'm reasonably
certain most playground software which has been doing active releases
has now moved to Extragear.

>
>
>> whoever came up with this bullshit should stop putting stones in
>> people's way and publish the tarballs. releasing tarballs is enough of
>> a chore as it is.
>
> I beg to disagree.
> You are free to release pre-production from playground. When you start
> releasing stable stuff, you are shouting that you are not *play*ground
> anymore.
>
> --
> Luigi

Cheers,
Ben