On 2007-12-14 02:40 pm, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > > The point is that some applications are ALREADY waiting
> > > for inclusion since July/07! That is why I think a
> > > release in April makes sense, it
> >
> > 4 months after 4.0? that's 2.5 months of development time
> > at best. seems rather sh
Op Thursday 13 December 2007 23:07 schreef u:
> Ok, so i renamed from kwin4 to KFourInLine given the kdegames IRC meeting
> consensus and Martin that is the maintainer agreeing.
>
> I'm almost sure i've done everything needed so that it works, i could start a
> game and play, but obviously doubl
Ok, so i renamed from kwin4 to KFourInLine given the kdegames IRC meeting
consensus and Martin that is the maintainer agreeing.
I'm almost sure i've done everything needed so that it works, i could start a
game and play, but obviously double checking everything works as expected is
welcome.
No
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:25, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > The point is that some applications are ALREADY waiting for inclusion
> > since July/07! That is why I think a release in April makes sense, it
> 4 months after 4.0? that's 2.5 months of development time at best. seems
> rather short.
In
On Thursday 13 December 2007 18:43:53 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> > i'd sooner see us (loosely) sync along with the Qt dev cycle (which has
> > become much more regular, ~9 month per release) to keep a steady flow
> > of feature / bug fixes going between KDE and Qt.
>
> Ok, keeping a pace with Qt
On Thursday 13 December 2007 18:25:16 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > After 4.1, we should probably experiment with the 6 month release
> > schedule that seems to be working for other projects,
>
> for certain values of "working". for at least one major project, there
> was an immediate and noticeable de
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> If something can not be
>> done in 3 months, it is doubtful that it would be ready in 4 or 5, at
>> least in the open source world, right?
>
> i haven't seen that to be the case, no.
The half of my brain that almost understands English is confused by this
double negativ
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> of course that's what we always used to do. 2.0 and 4.0 have been the only
> two
> exceptions i can think of since i've been around the project.
Yes, this was something we talked about during last Akademy, when there
was the "suggestion" to move to 6 months cycle. We alr
On Thursday 13 December 2007 16:59:16 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> Well, I think that *AFTER* 4.0 it is wrong to continue doing
> feature-based releases, and we could experiment a bit with
> schedule-driven ones. If it is 3 or 4 or 6 or 8 months it is open for
> discussion. But the basic idea is: w
On Thursday 13 December 2007, Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> > > I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
> > > features and that's quite crazy. If we do this, you once again leave
> > > out KDevelop and kdewebdev from the release because i don't think
> > > those are going
Le Wednesday 12 December 2007 04:04:20 pm Allen Winter, vous avez écrit :
> Howdy,
>
> For 4.x, where x >=1, I think we need to require maintainers for all our
> modules.
yes, this is good!
Being a module maintainer is not a big task, it's only about getting things
organized: organize an IRC meeti
> > I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
> > features and that's quite crazy. If we do this, you once again leave
> > out KDevelop and kdewebdev from the release because i don't think
> > those are going to be ready in 3-4 months. You also leave out a
> > significant
On Thursday 13 December 2007 14:08:32 Matt Rogers wrote:
> > How do people feel about this as rough planning?
>
> How about starting a new thread for it instead?
Good call. I'll post a more thought-through proposal shortly.
--
sebas
http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0
On 13.12.07 07:10:20, Matt Rogers wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:53 AM, John Tapsell wrote:
>
> > +1 vote for not including and having a 4.1 release within 3-4 months
> > of 4.0. I think everyone can be satisfied with that.
>
> I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 13, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Tom Albers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Without objections I will move Kompare to extragear tomorrow
> evening and add it to the keg-tarball-on-release-project.
>
> The 24h waiting period starts now.
> --
I object. It's already b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:53 AM, John Tapsell wrote:
> +1 vote for not including and having a 4.1 release within 3-4 months
> of 4.0. I think everyone can be satisfied with that.
I'm not. :P You get basically two months to develop and add new
feature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 13, 2007, at 5:49 AM, Sebastian Kuegler wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2007 12:35:29 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
>> >I think we might want to bump pretty quickly to a 4.1 release and
>> >that's when we can enable it again (and move some gam
On Thu 13 Dec 2007 10:29:06 Tom Albers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Without objections I will move Kompare to extragear tomorrow evening and
> add it to the keg-tarball-on-release-project.
>
> The 24h waiting period starts now.
No objection from me...
--
Helio Chissini de Castro
KDE Project South America Pr
Hi,
Without objections I will move Kompare to extragear tomorrow evening and add it
to the keg-tarball-on-release-project.
The 24h waiting period starts now.
--
Tom Albers ___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/m
>For 4.x, where x >=1, I think we need to require maintainers for all
>our modules.
+1 for this. This is not obvious, as having too many management layers
can sometimes interfere with the process (too many chiefs and no one to
do the work.) But looking at the current state of apps, it seems l
+1 vote for not including and having a 4.1 release within 3-4 months
of 4.0. I think everyone can be satisfied with that.
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
On Thursday 13 December 2007 12:35:29 Mauricio Piacentini wrote:
> >I think we might want to bump pretty quickly to a 4.1 release and
> >that's when we can enable it again (and move some games and kaider and
> >maybe the ssl tree).
>
> Yes, I also think we should not wait more than 3-4 months, a
>I think we might want to bump pretty quickly to a 4.1 release and
>that's when we can enable it again (and move some games and kaider and
>maybe the ssl tree).
Yes, I also think we should not wait more than 3-4 months, and plan 4.1
to the end of April, or May. We all know 4.0 is a release t
23 matches
Mail list logo
