On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:05:49 PM David Faure wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2012 01:16:05 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
If we really want to decouple our releases and be more flexible with
doing
them i consider this change a
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 13:26:12, David Faure va escriure:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:05:49 PM David Faure wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2012 01:16:05 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
If we really want to decouple our releases
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:21:40 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 13:26:12, David Faure va escriure:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:05:49 PM David Faure wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2012 01:16:05
On 07/12/2012 12:29 PM, Michael Jansen wrote:
I will implement the ability to skip release for unchanged modules
(fully automated) and would ask everyone here to really think twice
before asking the release team to keep the current practice of releasing
everything. Because there is no reason.
On Thursday 12 July 2012 12:36:05 Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:29 PM, Michael Jansen wrote:
I will implement the ability to skip release for unchanged modules
(fully automated) and would ask everyone here to really think twice
before asking the release team to keep the current
On Thursday 12 July 2012 19:43:54 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
So you will have a one-time task to set up the distribution build system to
create these packages. What I do not understand is why having particular
frameworks skip a release would make your work easier.
logic error: s/easier/more
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 19:29:46, Michael Jansen va escriure:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:21:40 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 13:26:12, David Faure va escriure:
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote:
On Monday, June
On 07/12/2012 12:43 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Now, I'd have a much lesser concern if modules that are part of the 'kde
development platform' at least are never skipped.
Could you explain why?
So, right now I can do a very simple runtime dependency for kde apps:
I agree with David here, just release everything, it's easier for
everyone.
No it is not. It is a waste of bandwidth, resources and time for all
involved.
Why do you ask for opinions of you are in possession of the truth?
I do not understand why you are saying that.
Do you
On Thursday 12 July 2012 13:01:47 Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:43 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Now, I'd have a much lesser concern if modules that are part of the 'kde
development platform' at least are never skipped.
Could you explain why?
So, right now I can do a very simple
On 07/12/2012 01:25 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
But apart from that: could we start dreaming? Dreaming of a KDE where every
application clearly defines what dependencies it has and exactly in a way that
packagers can set up the dependencies in an automatic and correct way? Can we
consider going
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 08:25:03 PM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2012 13:01:47 Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 12:43 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
Now, I'd have a much lesser concern if modules that are part of the
'kde
development platform' at least are never skipped.
You declare your dependencies ( A = 4.3, B = 4.5, C=1.7 )
B declares ( C = 1.6,!1.7) (Because of some 1.7 bug)
G..
___
release-team mailing list
release-team@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:50:01 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
Do you really think forcing an update of unchanged modules for our
convenience will help those of us trying to use plasma for mobile devices?
That's the work of the distributor for those mobile devices.
I think you're missing
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:48:53 PM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
On Thursday 12 July 2012 19:43:54 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
So you will have a one-time task to set up the distribution build system
to
create these packages. What I do not understand is why having particular
frameworks skip a
On Thursday 12 July 2012 13:36:18 Rex Dieter wrote:
On 07/12/2012 01:25 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
But apart from that: could we start dreaming? Dreaming of a KDE where
every
application clearly defines what dependencies it has and exactly in a way
that packagers can set up the
The one real world experience we have with this is kdepim. From my
perspective as a packager the entire transition has been a disaster and
created huge work for us (shortly before our KDE 4.7 based release I was
doing almost commit by commit updates of our packages in the hopes of
getting
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 09:30:51 PM Michael Jansen wrote:
The one real world experience we have with this is kdepim. From my
perspective as a packager the entire transition has been a disaster and
created huge work for us (shortly before our KDE 4.7 based release I was
doing almost
2012/7/11 Aurélien Gâteau agat...@kde.org:
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 11:23:28 Ben Cooksley a écrit :
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Allen Winter win...@kde.org wrote:
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 06:32:04 PM Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
Hi,
This morning I worked on two bug fixes for Gwenview
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 11:23:28 AM Ben Cooksley wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Allen Winter win...@kde.org wrote:
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 06:32:04 PM Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
Hi,
This morning I worked on two bug fixes for Gwenview which I pushed to the
KDE/4.9 branch.
One area this is missing is my own role as the release team list
moderator. Dirk can also do this, but I stepped in when he was finding
it hard to have the time and I doubt that has changed. At the moment I
think I'm generally keeping things flowing, but at high intensity
times like releases the
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, Richard Moore wrote:
One area this is missing is my own role as the release team list
moderator. Dirk can also do this, but I stepped in when he was finding
it hard to have the time and I doubt that has changed. At the moment I
think I'm generally keeping things flowing,
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 08:43:12 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
== Note 2 ==
There is a suggestion that every feature commit should have an associated
bug number so it can be better tracked. Someone suggests trying with
frameworks when its more ready
I wonder if we could make special Big
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 17:06:12, Allen Winter va escriure:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 08:43:12 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
== Note 2 ==
There is a suggestion that every feature commit should have an associated
bug number so it can be better tracked. Someone suggests trying
I've now had 3 volunteers. Thanks to Sune, Boud and Albert we now have
this one sorted. :-)
Cheers
Rich.
On 12 July 2012 22:01, Richard Moore r...@kde.org wrote:
One area this is missing is my own role as the release team list
moderator. Dirk can also do this, but I stepped in when he was
2012/7/10 Albert Astals Cid aa...@kde.org:
El Dimarts, 10 de juliol de 2012, a les 10:01:53, Rex Dieter va escriure:
On 07/10/2012 09:56 AM, Jeremy Whiting wrote:
It seems it has been moved to playground from kdelibs, but the
application in kdeutils is still sitting there. Shouldn't that be
Howdy,
Wondering if we should add a new bugzilla severity type called Feature.
This is something a product owner can add to a bugzilla issue. Users should
not be able to set this.
When users request new features -- we call those wishes. This new type will
be for features that
the development
On Thursday 12 July 2012 19:15:10 Allen Winter wrote:
We would do away with the wiki-based feature plans currently on techbase:
replacing with a bugzilla query.
For example, the query for all wishes planned for 4.10 are:
28 matches
Mail list logo
