Some of the features or large changes that were added to 5.18 but caused regressions made it in close to the cut-off, but many were committed months ago. In particular 417424, 416695, 416358 were not the result of rush jobs, but they got broken anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree though, but if we want to take a firm stance on this, I think we need to branch much earlier. "Soft" feature freezes don't cut it. We should maybe branch two months before the release rather than one.

Also, we can't branch Frameworks due to their inherently rolling nature. Some of the regressions were caused by issues in Frameworks (417351, 417127, 417511). What are we going to do about those? It's not feasible to ask people to stop committing potentially risky changes to frameworks near a Plasma release because Plasma isn't the only customer of Frameworks.


On 2020-02-14 01:58, Marco Martin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 5:40 PM Nate Graham <> wrote:

Plasma 5.18 was a pretty buggy release, and I'd like to start a
discussion about how we think it happened and what we can do better next
time. Here are some of the top bugs that our users are reporting:

I think we wanted to put too much in this release: it's pretty buggy
but also the one that came in with more new features since quite a
while. which in retrospect wasn't that good for an lts

Marco Martin

Reply via email to