On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:38 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:25 AM Aleix Pol <aleix...@kde.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:10 PM David Edmundson > > <da...@davidedmundson.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>> As distribution package maintainers, we would like Plasma developers to > >>> slightly alter the release schedule to align releases with a more > >>> distribution friendly cycle. You could consider shortening one release > >>> cycle (and then keep the 6 month schedule) to align releases. > >> > >> > >> We have in the past shuffled things slightly to line up things up with > >> distros on request, particularly LTS releases. We can certainly explore > >> that on a one-off basis. > >> > >> >With this schedule in place, we would also benefit from more beta > >> >releases over a slightly longer period. They would be packaged into the > >> >beta and RC releases of those distributions thus enabling more > >> >pre-release testing. > >> > >> We did have 6 month release cycles in the past. > >> > >> The rationale for moving at the time was twofold: > >> - people rushed in changes towards the feature freeze as otherwise it > >> would be aages till their changes reached users > >> - the more changes we have in a release, the more testing and inevitable > >> regression fixes we need to do, spreading that out should result in things > >> being more stable > >> > >> Initially we did every 3 months (which arguably still aligns) then it > >> slowly slipped to 4. > >> > >> My personal impression is that releases have gotten better as a result of > >> those changes, so I'm hesitant about reverting that decision. > >> > > > > > > Makes sense. With Qt being less of a moving target though, it could make > > sense to reevaluate our cadence though, both because we might start looking > > into the future and because the system we support should not be changing as > > much. > > > > If we don't want to move to 6 months, pulling back from 4 months to 3 > months would make it easier for us to not miss Plasma releases. > > That being said, with Qt6 now being a thing, wouldn't that mean Qt is > more of a moving target again?
It will take some time to be able to put together a release that's fully tested against Qt 6. Aleix
