On Wed, 13 May 2026, 3:45 pm Neal Gompa, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:53 PM Nicolas Fella <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On 5/12/26 10:45 PM, 2Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > El dimarts, 12 de maig del 2026, a les 20:13:01 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa > > > central), Marco Martin va escriure: > > >> On Tue, May 12, 2026, 18:15 Marco Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> We (as in Techpaladin) pledge to take up the maintenance of such > branch as > > >>> long as it's supported, managing backports, testing and releases, as > well > > >>> as keeping the new CI nodes green > > >> What do you think about it? Is something that looks sensible on the > > >> upstream/community point of view? > > > Apologies if the next question sounds a bit blunt I didn't figure out > how word > > > it in a somewhat better way. > > > > > > Is this something we want to pretend the community is doing? > > > > > > That is, do we want to try to make this "a KDE thing" or is it clearly > > > structured as a Techpaladin/Kubuntu Focus thing? > > > > > > For me the second option makes it "simpler". > > > > > > Then my suggestion would be to just create "vendor" branches like the > ones > > > that we have for example in kleopatra/mimetreeparser/friends > > > > > > gpg4win/23.10 > > > gpg4win/24.05 > > > gpg4win/gpd-5.0 > > > gpg4win/gpd-5.1 > > > > > > So create something like kubuntufocus/26.04 > > > > > > Maybe it would even make sense to create such branches for KDE Plasma > 6.6 > > > (after final 6.6.6 is released) and KDE Gear 25.12? > > > > I assume this would be shipped in *upstream* Kubuntu 26.04, not some > > derived version of that? > > > > If that's indeed the case then I'm okay with a more neutral name like > > Frameworks/6.24. Doesn't matter that much who is doing it. > > > > I am skeptical of the viability of this. Back in the days when we had > them, Kubuntu didn't ship the point releases anyway because the > updates policy for Kubuntu didn't make it easy for them to do it. And > I have seen no indication from *Kubuntu* that this would change > anytime soon. > > Otherwise, I would rather *not* see these branches at all, not as > vendor branches either. It's just a bad idea all around because it > creates confusion for everyone. Even the gpg4win ones create problems. > Can you explain please how vendor specific branches (like the enterprise/* ones many years ago, or the gpg4win/* branches today) create issues? I would not expect people to look at branches with vendor specific naming unless they had a reason to do so. > And as mentioned earlier, this would be a mess if we start having two > separate client requests for long-term KDE stack maintenance because > they're stopping on different points. > By separate clients, you mean different distros I assume? Note that a rather key difference here is that a commercial vendor, not the community, is the one maintaining this. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > Cheers, Ben >
