On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 30 June 2014, Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > At the Hangout meeting today it was decided to go with a three month > > release cycle and bug fix branch and to use this cycle for 5.0 and 5.1. > > > > I've updated the schedule http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/Plasma_5 > > > > RC tagging and tars this Thursday > > 5.0 tagging next Thursday when I'll make 5.0 branches too > > Four week later is 5.0.1 from stable branch > > Four weeks later is 5.0.2 from stable branch > > A week after that and is 5.1 beta and freeze for features and messages > > Four weeks later is 5.1 release > > not completely sure the bugfix branches would be used that much, I guess we > have to see how we can work with it > > one thing that occurred to me after the hangout this morning, is that the > plasma-framework part that is a big part would have the one month schedule, > while the workspace parts would be 3 months, that sounds kinda weird. > but i guess we could say no features on every third release of plasma- > framework, so synchs with the workspace. > > last thing, if the workspace has a slower cycle than all the frameworks, > means > that it should always work with several frameworks releases at once, since > we > wouldn't know what mix of version ends up in a distribution. > > It's quite unfortunate the fact that we'll have a more schedule for the frameworks and then the workspaces won't be able to take advantage of those. I don't think it makes sense to decide to stop the development on a plasma-framework, because after-all plasma depends on many other frameworks just as well. It's random to choose Plasma just because it shares maintainership. Aleix
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
