On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Inge Wallin wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2011 14:15:01 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Tomas Mecir wrote:
> > > As a disclaimer, I'm not active in Calligra development currently, so
> > > my opinion may not be entirely relevant, b
On Thursday 13 January 2011 14:51:32 Inge Wallin wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2011 14:15:01 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 January 2011, Tomas Mecir wrote:
> > > As a disclaimer, I'm not active in Calligra development currently, so
> > > my opinion may not be entirely relevant,
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 14:15:01 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 13 January 2011, Tomas Mecir wrote:
> > As a disclaimer, I'm not active in Calligra development currently, so
> > my opinion may not be entirely relevant, but hopefully it will be
> > useful anyway.
> >
> > Wouldn't i
> As a disclaimer, I'm not active in Calligra development currently, so
> my opinion may not be entirely relevant, but hopefully it will be
> useful anyway.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to (at least for the initial release) use a
> different development scheme with an alpha/beta version being released
As a disclaimer, I'm not active in Calligra development currently, so
my opinion may not be entirely relevant, but hopefully it will be
useful anyway.
Wouldn't it be better to (at least for the initial release) use a
different development scheme with an alpha/beta version being released
every mont
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:57:10 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 13 January 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > Now, if we instead prolong the initial release phase to, say, 7 months
> > and by doing that make sure that the release is in fact good enough
> > then the user gets a usable Ca
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:12:26 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 13 January 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > What we have to keep in mind is that a quick release that is not good
> > enough is actually a delay. It's a delay until Calligra is relevant and
> > it's a delay until people
On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 16:41:55 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka 2.4
> (and not 1.0 :) ).
>
> If we were to strictly follow our schedule, we would have schedule that
> looks like this: (with year+1, ie 2010->2011)
Recently I'm busy with my final exams and didn't commit to calligra. I
can come back at 18th, I prefer more extra time so that I can make
Flow at least usable for basic operations in 2.4.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote
On 12 January 2011 20:32, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:09:59 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > Time to work on a release schedule for the firs
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:41:27 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:32:04 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > We could go with a really long and relaxed beta period :-)
> >
> > could work, with a bit of enhanced publicity
>
>
On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:32:04 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > We could go with a really long and relaxed beta period :-)
> could work, with a bit of enhanced publicity
Another option could be to go to a fast & furious two month schedule to sho
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:32:04 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:09:59 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Time to work on a release sche
On Wednesday 12 January 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:09:59 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka
> > > 2.4 (and not 1.0 :) ).
> >
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 20:09:59 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka
> > 2.4 (and not 1.0 :) ).
> >
> > If we were to strictly follow our schedule, we would h
On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 12 January 2011 20:09, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka 2.4
> >> (and not 1.0 :) ).
> >>
> >> If
On 12 January 2011 20:09, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka 2.4
>> (and not 1.0 :) ).
>>
>> If we were to strictly follow our schedule, we would have schedule that l
On Wednesday 12 January 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka 2.4
> (and not 1.0 :) ).
>
> If we were to strictly follow our schedule, we would have schedule that looks
> like this: (with year+1, ie 2010->2011)
>
> ht
On Wednesday 12 January 2011 16:41:55 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Time to work on a release schedule for the first calligra release, aka 2.4
> (and not 1.0 :) ).
>
> If we were to strictly follow our schedule, we would have schedule that
> looks like this: (with year+1, ie 2010->2011)
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
