On 5/19/26 9:19 AM, Volker Krause wrote:
On Monday, 18 May 2026 17:44:22 Central European Summer Time Nate Graham
wrote:
To help move this forward, are there any formal objections to
Techpaladin people (Marco, me, possibly others) creating stable branches
for frameworks that we would maintain by backporting bug-fixes already
on master to, and making releases from those branches as needed?
No objection, just note that using KDE stable branch schemes (as opposed to
vendor branches) means that KDE stable branch rules apply, e.g. regarding
string freezes, new features or who can decide what goes in and what doesn't.
Doesn't look like that's going to be a problem here, but it's an aspect
learned from the "enterprise3" vendor branches back then which hadn't been
mentioned here yet I think. Ie. if you need to control the rules, a vendor
branch is probably the better choice.
Absolutely. Like I mentioned, the intention is definitely to only
backport bug fixes already on master. No end-run around the normal rules
for stable branches
In the very rare cases that a UI change, string change, or feature is
requested to be backported, we'd go through all the proper procedures.
But I don't see this as a particularly likely outcome in the first place.
Nate
