On Monday 21 April 2008 16:12:08 Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Monday 21 April 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > * if we want WoC and other necessary steps forward in plasma in a > > rational time frame (e.g. not next year), occassional blips like this > > will happen and be necessary. bitching about how it will affect an > > *alpha* release is shortsighted > > I have no pain in plasma being less than 100% functional for Alpha1, to be > exact. The only question that is relevant (besides that I hurt your > feelings again, I'm sorry really about that): does it help plasma > development to get user feedback about the current (well todays+2 days) > state of plasma or not? if you're saying "I don't want anyone to tell me > about problems" right now, then we have to evaluate a different option. if > you're saying "there are some problems but we'd still want to have some > feedback) , then we're good to go.
Before the WoC merge, two people had worked on it, having it in (which really was a group decision at the sprint) 'elevated its priority' and more people joined in (locally at the sprint and on IRC). We got it back to something that looks like a desktop pretty quickly. Although speculative, I doubt this would have been possible when operating from a branch. So yeah, pain, but worth it. > It is an *alpha* release afterall, the amount of feedback it will receive > will probably be fairly minimal anyway. And we have a tradition of Alpha releases of Plasma, no? ;-) -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
