On Friday, June 10, 2011 17:24:57 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
> > In the end, you will be perceived for what you release - and here we get
> > back to this list. KDE lives from being a consistent whole. Eric
> > Hameleers already made some very valid points there. Breaking KDE up
> > does not help, and t
On Thursday, June 09, 2011 06:08:56 PM Tom Albers wrote:
> > Having KDE's own packages also released in an uncoordinated
> > fashion
>
> Wow. Who suggested that? That would make a mess indeed. I certainly did not
> ever suggest that. If you think so, pleas reread all my mails. I've
> suggested th
On Friday 10 June 2011 01:00:45 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > I just read a very good novel where all such talk about "Software
>
> Collection"
>
> > or "Platform" was aptly called "commercial bulshytt". I think many of us,
> > including your "only-users", would appreciate it if you all there
> >
On Friday, 10 de June de 2011 10:56:11 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Exactly. Having a larger number of small tarballs can be just fine if done
> properly. But, they should still have the same release schedule, version
> number, and should be tested to work together. I.e. released as a working
> w
>
> So forget about monolithic tarballs please. It is clouding the issue.
>
Exactly. Having a larger number of small tarballs can be just fine if done
properly. But, they should still have the same release schedule, version
number, and should be tested to work together. I.e. released as a wor
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Modestas Vainius wrote:
> On penktadienis 10 Bir?elis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
> What do small tarballs have to do with this disintegration? I do understand
> that you dislike small well-split tarballs but, seriously, don't blame
> everything on them. It's only a di
Hello,
On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 11:49:47 Eric Hameleers wrote:
> Again, monolithic tarballs or not, this is not the topic. Coordinating
> the release process for all the individual submodules is what is going
> to make or break KDE's acceptance. Do I have to remind you of the
> consequenc
> I just read a very good novel where all such talk about "Software
Collection"
> or "Platform" was aptly called "commercial bulshytt". I think many of us,
> including your "only-users", would appreciate it if you all there upstream
> would just stick to KDE, because that is what everyone uses.
On Friday 10 June 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >OK, since a lot of context apparently got lost during the message
> >passing, let
> >me just state my (personal) position clearly:
> >
> >What I think is acceptable:
> >* Module X wants feature Y, which is non-invasive and wel
On Thursday 09 June 2011, Eric Hameleers wrote:
> Andreas, how I agree!
>
> This now, is _exactly_ what I was afraid for when I voiced my concern
> about the break-up of this relatively small collection of coherent
> source tarballs we are used to work with, into a fragmented and
> potentially dis
OK, since a lot of context apparently got lost during the message passing, let
me just state my (personal) position clearly:
What I think is acceptable:
* Module X wants feature Y, which is non-invasive and well-tested and does not
change the user experience nor the user interface in a significa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Dear KDE upstream,
>
>> Since KDE is the community, how can we do a KDE 4.8? And then Platform will
>> call itself 5 if I understood correctly. So how do we call a new release
>> schedule then?
>
> I jus
Dear KDE upstream,
> Since KDE is the community, how can we do a KDE 4.8? And then Platform will
> call itself 5 if I understood correctly. So how do we call a new release
> schedule then?
I just read a very good novel where all such talk about "Software Collection"
or "Platform" was aptly call
Hello,
On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
> > That both makes no sense. Suggestion 1 fails completely with the "if they
> > like" part, since we all know already how much pain the "out of sync
> > kdepim" caused. Suggestion 2 fails with the "independent of the
> > sche
On Friday 10 June 2011 01:22:00 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> On Friday 10 June 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >OK, since a lot of context apparently got lost during the message
> > >passing, let
> > >me just state my (personal) position clearly:
> > >
> > >What I think is accept
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>OK, since a lot of context apparently got lost during the message
>passing, let
>me just state my (personal) position clearly:
>
>What I think is acceptable:
>* Module X wants feature Y, which is non-invasive and well-tested and
>does not
>change the user experience nor t
- Original Message -
> My main concern with disparate releases would be that it would be
> impossible
> to test all the possible combinations properly. Every distribution
> would end
> up with its own combination of versions, with the potential for
> incompatibilities nobody else can reprod
Hi,
The release-team mailinglist is for release coordination, reaching consensus
and then announce the outcome on the appropiate lists. I think I started a
valid discussion, which can be discussed maturely inside the release-team, it
was not meant to be passed to a wider audience.
You have no
18 matches
Mail list logo
