2 kirigami fixes for a point release

[Nate Graham]

Personally I think it would be nice to have 
86f988434cd657e77cc9429e78f7290ce6b5713d since otherwise LTS Plasma 
users will be hitting it for the next few years.

---

On another note, I have to admit I'm starting to doubt how well our LTS 
Plasma product works without a corresponding LTS frameworks release to 
support it. We can fix bugs in software that uses the Plasma release 
schedule till the cows come home, but if the bug is in Frameworks, users 
are stuck with it forever since LTS distros don't typically ship new 
Frameworks releases.

Yes yes, they should, and all that--but they don't.

It seems like we either need to:
- Work on convincing these distros to ship Frameworks versions in a 
rolling manner to their LTS users
- Provide an LTS Frameworks product that can receive bugfixes and get 
point releases, to support the Plasma LTS product
- Stop misleadingly offering a Plasma LTS product, since everything in 
it that comes from Frameworks isn't actually LTS

Nate



On 2020-02-12 05:39, Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:56 PM David Faure <faure at kde.org> wrote:
>>
>> On mercredi 12 février 2020 12:48:48 CET you wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> me again, sorry :/
>>> there seem to have been 2 regressions in kirigami 5.67 which are
>>> affecting the lts release of plasma in a quite user visible way
>>>
>>> fixes for them are
>>> 86f988434cd657e77cc9429e78f7290ce6b5713d
>>> and
>>> f695cde36a6829b8b92b2fd82deff16d9385fcb9
>>
>> And which regressions will these commits create themselves? :-)
> 
> Ah, wait: f695cde36a6829b8b92b2fd82deff16d9385fcb9 was already
> included in 5.67.1,
> I didn't notice that, my bad.
> 
> The other one is for https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=417351 which
> is rather subtle/not often happening.
> So, I'm ok to go on the safe side and not release a v5.67.2.
> 
> --
> Marco Martin
>