On 7 February 2011 13:50, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> On 7 February 2011 11:21, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> > On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>> >
>> >> Extend the co-installability to the snapshots. What means Calligra not
>>
On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 7 February 2011 11:21, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> >
> >> Extend the co-installability to the snapshots. What means Calligra not
> >> only can be co-installable with the GroupA-Office but
On 7 February 2011 11:21, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
>
>> Extend the co-installability to the snapshots. What means Calligra not
>> only can be co-installable with the GroupA-Office but also with the
>> latest (or any) stable Calligra release. I se
While I agree that coinstability in the same prefix is close to impossible to
achieve, without a lot of work and hacks. I do think that we should do
something to make it possible for a calligra version to be installed in kde's
prefix (ie /usr) and in an other prefix.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
__
On Monday 07 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> Extend the co-installability to the snapshots. What means Calligra not
> only can be co-installable with the GroupA-Office but also with the
> latest (or any) stable Calligra release. I see value in this and the
> effort at the side of packager
+1
I think that with a stable master branch we might very well convert this
snapshots in just normal releases. Pretty much like Google Chrome works.
Anyway, let's not open discussion again, let's see how this works first.
Cheers
Astelehena 07 Otsaila 2011(e)an, Yue Liu(e)k idatzi zuen:
> agre
On Monday 07 February 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> > On Monday 07 February 2011 10:10:13 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > > The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so
> > >
> > > here's a really concrete proposal:
> > >
>
On 7 February 2011 10:10, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so here's
> a really concrete proposal:
>
> * Let's make a monthly calligra snapshot that's advertised as reasonably
> stable and full of you-need-to-try-this goodness until we a
On Monday 07 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011 10:10:13 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so
> >
> > here's a really concrete proposal:
> >
> >
> > * Let's make a monthly calligra snapshot that's advertised as
agreed.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:56 PM, C. Boemann wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2011 10:10:13 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so
>> here's a really concrete proposal:
>>
>> * Let's make a monthly calligra snapshot that's advertised as
On Monday 07 February 2011 10:10:13 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so
> here's a really concrete proposal:
>
> * Let's make a monthly calligra snapshot that's advertised as reasonably
> stable and full of you-need-to-try-this goodness un
The discussion seemed to have petered out without a real decision, so here's a
really concrete proposal:
* Let's make a monthly calligra snapshot that's advertised as reasonably stable
and full of you-need-to-try-this goodness until we are at a point where we can
start a real release schedule
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, todd rme wrote:
> That is fine once we have an initial "main" release, but in my opinion
> you made a clear commitment to support koffice 2.3 until then. I
> think abandoning koffice 2.3 now would be a P.R. disaster. First, it
> could easily be portrayed as spiteful
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Cyrille Berger Skott
wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
>> But as a user, I expect to be able to update to either a new version with
>> new features and possibly also new bugs or a more stable release with no
>> new features but also definit
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> Do you have any thoughts
> on when to interrupt this scheme and go to X releases per year (4 is not
> yet decided)?
When Calligra is user-ready :) So in about 6 to 8 monthes.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
2011/2/2 C. Boemann :
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011 10:34:30 Pierre Stirnweiss wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
>> > > Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time?
>> >
>> > The
>>
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> While this is true, the Linux distros work the same way. I think we should
> ask
> the packagers first what they think of the idea.
I think packaging is mostly automated these days. It'll be possible, though,
that
one or more of the distros will pick a
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 11:26:10 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > I may have misunderstood, but if I understood correctly I'm very sorry to
> > have to say that I hate this. The reason is that it is a
> > developer-centric way to work rather tha
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> But as a user, I expect to be able to update to either a new version with
> new features and possibly also new bugs or a more stable release with no
> new features but also definitely less bugs.
It is temporary. Until we have reached a user ready
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> I may have misunderstood, but if I understood correctly I'm very sorry to
> have
> to say that I hate this. The reason is that it is a developer-centric way to
> work rather than a user-centric.
>
> I'm sure it will be very ego-boosting for u
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 11:08:56 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> > Calligra Suite 2.3 Stable snapshot 201103
>
> For packagers we would need a proper version number. One that is lower than
> the next stable, and bigger than the previous one.
s
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> Calligra Suite 2.3 Stable snapshot 201103
For packagers we would need a proper version number. One that is lower than
the next stable, and bigger than the previous one.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
call
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:34:30 Pierre Stirnweiss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > > Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time?
> >
> > The
> >
> > > reason I ask is th
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 10:47:40 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> > I like this very much, both now and as the future way of releasing.
> >
> > i would assume our first release would then be:
> >
> > Calligra Suite 2.3 Stable snapshot 201103
>
> I
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, C. Boemann wrote:
> I like this very much, both now and as the future way of releasing.
>
> i would assume our first release would then be:
>
> Calligra Suite 2.3 Stable snapshot 201103
>
I was rather hoping for a February release...
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http:/
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 10:34:30 Pierre Stirnweiss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > > Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time?
> >
> > The
> >
> > > reason I ask is that
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Pierre Stirnweiss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> >
> > > Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time?
> > The
> > > reason I ask is that I wonder w
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> > We have to plan branching rules for this, or is tagging the master our
> > way (+feature branches)? Whatever works for you.
> I wanted to discuss this at the sprint :)
:-). But t
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Are you sure about the deps? I am fairly sure that we still compile against
> Qt 4.6 and KDE 4.5 -- maybe even 4.4.
yes it does. The build bot compiles calligra with Qt4.6 and KDE 4.4. (so does
some debian users :) ).
--
Cyrille Berger Sko
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
>
> > Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time?
> The
> > reason I ask is that I wonder which Linux distros are going to package
> the
> > previews and how.
>
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> We have to plan branching rules for this, or is tagging the master our
> way (+feature branches)? Whatever works for you.
I wanted to discuss this at the sprint :)
My idea was to have feature branches. And trying to have feature branches hav
On 2 February 2011 10:12, Inge Wallin wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 09:35:00 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With the removal of kexi, krita and kplato from the koffice.org website,
>> I'm reluctant to continue having krita released as part of KOffice 2.3.x.
>> In fact, even though
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote:
> On 2 February 2011 10:05, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> > Only problem is that it would not really help users that would most likely
> > have to be satisfied with koffice 2.3 until we release something labeled
> > stable.
>
> I also see som
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Inge Wallin wrote:
> Do you plan to make real, i.e. not previews, of Krita in the mean time? The
> reason I ask is that I wonder which Linux distros are going to package the
> previews and how.
I think that (after a bit of cleanup), Calligra master contains a sta
On 2 February 2011 10:05, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Only problem is that it would not really help users that would most likely
> have to be satisfied with koffice 2.3 until we release something labeled
> stable.
I also see something related to the recent thread about minimal Qt
dependencies.
On Wednesday 02 February 2011, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
> Only problem is that it would not really help users that would most likely
> have to be satisfied with koffice 2.3 until we release something labeled
> stable.
Well, that's why I stressed that master is quite stable -- and with a bit m
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 09:35:00 Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the removal of kexi, krita and kplato from the koffice.org website,
> I'm reluctant to continue having krita released as part of KOffice 2.3.x.
> In fact, even though I'm fairly sure that giving up maintainance of
> KOf
On 2 February 2011 09:35, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the removal of kexi, krita and kplato from the koffice.org website, I'm
> reluctant to continue having krita released as part of KOffice 2.3.x. In
> fact, even though I'm fairly sure that giving up maintainance of KOffice 2.3
> is
how about keep up two release branches, 2.4 and 3.0 snapshot?
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Cyrille Berger Skott
wrote:
> Only problem is that it would not really help users that would most likely
> have to be satisfied with koffice 2.3 until we release something labeled
> stable.
>
> --
> Cyri
Only problem is that it would not really help users that would most likely
have to be satisfied with koffice 2.3 until we release something labeled
stable.
--
Cyrille Berger Skott
___
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde
Hi,
With the removal of kexi, krita and kplato from the koffice.org website, I'm
reluctant to continue having krita released as part of KOffice 2.3.x. In fact,
even though I'm fairly sure that giving up maintainance of KOffice 2.3 is
exactly that TZ wanted to achieve, I don't think we should pu
41 matches
Mail list logo
