--
Boudewijn Rempt
http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl
--- Begin Message ---
I confirm: no more crash or hang here, looks good to go with 2.4b2.
___
kimageshop mailing list
kimages...@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/m
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn R
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > > > So any objection to the revert of
> > > > >
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > > So any objection to the revert of
> > > > ef3277a2bd7dd0b9454114d1562b633dff47c86e ?
> > >
> > > Yes, I prefe
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > So any objection to the revert of
> > > ef3277a2bd7dd0b9454114d1562b633dff47c86e ?
> >
> > Yes, I prefer to delay the tagging of the beta release, instead of causing
> > a m
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > So any objection to the revert of
> > ef3277a2bd7dd0b9454114d1562b633dff47c86e ?
>
> Yes, I prefer to delay the tagging of the beta release, instead of causing
> a mess for the krita developers by reverting a huge merge.
There are only two
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > Yes, we have a branch called "master", just like we used to have a branch
> > called "trunk". We don't have any other branch that is related to the
> > release process. We only
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Yes, we have a branch called "master", just like we used to have a branch
> called "trunk". We don't have any other branch that is related to the
> release process. We only have feature branches.
>
> But let it go, this discussion isn't produc
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Be
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > > I am rather convince that our current model (
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie
> > > master in a releasable state at
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie
> > master in a releasable state at all time), but it does require people to
> > accept that their latest
On 29 September 2011 09:44, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
>> I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie master
>> in a releasable state at all time), but it does require people to accept that
>> their latest newes
On 29 September 2011 09:22, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Thursday 29 September 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
>> > For faster releases you need something like the merge windows for the
>> > kernel. The problem is that when merge happen to close the beta release,
>> > we get lots of bug reports that
On Thursday 29 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> I am rather convince that our current model (or the one we aim at, ie master
> in a releasable state at all time), but it does require people to accept that
> their latest newest shiny super cool feature is less important than shipp
On Thursday 29 September 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > For faster releases you need something like the merge windows for the
> > kernel. The problem is that when merge happen to close the beta release,
> > we get lots of bug reports that are not needed.
We already have "merge window" it is called "f
On Thursday, September 29, 2011 04:19:32 Sven Langkamp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I generall
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I generally oppose the idea of delaying a beta for quality reason,
> there
> > > is alway
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> And really, missing a beta is not a big deal, there is an other beta coming
> in
> three weeks. Unless you break your application... but that *should* *not*
> happen.
Sorry, it did happen. There's no way back now that I would su
On Wednesday 28 September 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I generally oppose the idea of delaying a beta for quality reason, there
> > is always an important bug that is going to be fixed the next day of the
> > tagging
On Wednesday 28 September 2011 Sep, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I generally oppose the idea of delaying a beta for quality reason, there is
> always an important bug that is going to be fixed the next day of the
> tagging.
Of course. Let's make it more generic then: I propose that we
On Tuesday 27 September 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> The later the better as far as Words is concerned
That is why we have a beta 3 scheduled (and I don't see how we are going to
avoid a beta 4).
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
calligra-devel mailing list
cal
Hi,
I generally oppose the idea of delaying a beta for quality reason, there is
always an important bug that is going to be fixed the next day of the tagging.
On Tuesday 27 September 2011, Sven Langkamp wrote:
> the recent merge of the strokes framework branch has introduce a number of
> proble
On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:46:36 Sven Langkamp wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> the recent merge of the strokes framework branch has introduce a number of
> problems in Krita. These problems need to be fixed for the next beta or
> Krita would be practically unuseable. We dicussed that on IRC and it was
>
Hi,
the recent merge of the strokes framework branch has introduce a number of
problems in Krita. These problems need to be fixed for the next beta or
Krita would be practically unuseable. We dicussed that on IRC and it was
suggested to move the tagging of the beta to monday to give us more time
25 matches
Mail list logo
