Hello everybody, On 01/26/18 13:45, Matěj Laitl wrote: > Hi Stefano, > I totally agree, 2.9 should be released to push the work done to users.
I agree, although I don't really know how adoption by distros will turn out, considering Qt4 is EOL since quite some time, same for KDELibs (although not that long). But a release isn't that much effort and at least shows some activity and maybe provides incentive to contribute and if all that fails it's at least a fixed point before the port to Qt5/KF5. > I unfortunately won't find time to do it myself, but: try to start > making the release yourself! ;) It should be documented quite well. I'd be willing to tackle this, if nobody steps up (which appears to be the case at the moment, sorry if I stepped on any toes). Being a packager and having done a few extragear releases with releaseme should be quite helpful. So, I propose the following schedule: - 1 week to find out what can be fixed in short time with low manpower or should be disabled (e.g cover search services) - Create tarball afterward, give packagers and others some time to test - If all goes well release on March, 5th - Merge kf5 (which isn't unusable after the latest patches from Malte) into master afterwards > If you get stuck or need help with particular tasks, speak up on ML (and > CC me), I'm quite confident somebody from us will help. (people usually > procrastinate "big" tasks, but answering a concrete questions is much > easier) What I'm a bit unsure about is how to communicate the release. Something along the lines "This release might not be as polished as past releases, but there's some activity and bug fixes, a port to KF5 and any help is certainly welcome."? Cheers, Heiko > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:43 PM Stefano Pettini > <stefano.pett...@gmail.com <mailto:stefano.pett...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Matej, > > have you received my last message to the mailing list? What's your > opinion? Sadly the project seems really abandoned, still it doesn't > mean we can't do a last release. I also wrote to Myriam, she didn't > answer, hope everything is fine. > > Stefano > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Stefano Pettini* <stefano.pett...@gmail.com > <mailto:stefano.pett...@gmail.com>> > Date: Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 10:05 AM > Subject: A proposal to release 2.9 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> > > > Hi, > > it's many years now that Amarok 2.9 is about to be released. The > saturday-morning emails remember us weekly that there are still a > couple of regressions since years. In the meanwhile development > almost stopped, but not completely. I, like many, contributed with > small but important patches (otherwise we would haven't dedicated > time to provide such fixes). > > I think it's fair if the work since 2.8 is not wasted and 2.9 is > released. > > Current regressions are minor bugs, the only annoying thing not > working anymore is the cover search. But it's not a newly-introduced > regression, just the world changed and all the services used for > cover search become not available anymore. It's not a problem not > present in 2.8 that people would face when updating to 2.9. It's > already broken now. > > I would disable what doesn't work to not give false impressions, > removing the broken services from cover search, and release 2.9. > This would fix the access to wikipedia and other bugs we dedicated > time to. > > Cover search can be restored later, if developers find time to > dedicate to it and somebody reviews the available services and > select the suitable ones for the future Amarok. > > Regards, > Stefano