On Friday 10 June 2011 01:22:00 Kevin Kofler wrote: > On Friday 10 June 2011, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> 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 the user interface in a significant way > > >(for > > >those not using the new feature), backported and released together > > >with > > >KDE SC 4.n.x. > > > > This would mean Kubuntu would not be able to ship KDE point releases as > > post-release updates, which I would find very unfortunate. The rest I > > agree with. > > Are your policies that anal? Sigh… :-( > > I don't really see what everyone's problem is with a feature which does not > disrupt the user experience in any way. It helps users and doesn't hurt > anyone.
Except that there is no such thing as well-tested and non-invasive. To quote [1]: "As stable releases these are recommended to a wide user base who expect a high degree of stability. Changes should therefore be verifiable, reliable and regression free." Considering that even a one line change can introduce a security issue/memleak/crash/misbehavior/... I, as a user of the software, would rather not take the risk that comes with every, but especially non-vital, change. And about 99% of the time some feature is surely not as vital that one could not wait for <=5 months. [1] http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Minor_Point_Release_Policy -- Harald >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
