Hello Community,
I know this might be a controversial idea, but I would like to propose reunify
our release schedules. I feel like splitting our releases schedules between
Frameworks, Plasma and Gear is not working as well as we intended it to be when
we split the releases schedules for Plasma 5.
Thanks for taking the time to assemble this email, Carl. These are
arguments I've brought up individually myself for years, and I think
they have merit.
Taken together, for me they paint a picture of a project that was
attempted, faithfully executed on, but didn't end up delivering the
benefi
Nate Graham ha scritto:
> I expect a vast amount of discussion to result from this proposal, and I think
> that's great. It'll be good to talk about it. But I suspect in the end we'll
> likely not achieve 100% consensus, and in that event I'd like for us to put it
> to a formal KDE e.V. vote so th
(apologize, resending, I've missed a CC)
Carl Schwan ha scritto:
> Hello Community,
>
> I know this might be a controversial idea, but I would like to propose reunify
> our release schedules. I feel like splitting our releases schedules between
> Frameworks, Plasma and Gear is not working as well
On Friday, April 19, 2024 2:03:45 PM GMT+2 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> We also have and we will continue to have applications which are not on this
> schedule, and thus KDE will continue to be unfit as a general brand for
> them. The work to reduce the dependencies improved with the move to Qt 6
> (fo
On Freitag, 19. April 2024 11:04:33 CEST Carl Schwan wrote:
> * We currently don't have a stable branch for Framework and it takes often
> up to one month for fixes to be deployed. The Framework releases is also
> not in sync with either Gear nor Plasma while these two modules heavily
> make use of
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:35 AM Volker Krause wrote:
>
> On Freitag, 19. April 2024 11:04:33 CEST Carl Schwan wrote:
> > * We currently don't have a stable branch for Framework and it takes often
> > up to one month for fixes to be deployed. The Framework releases is also
> > not in sync with eit
Hello,
Unsurprisingly I'll be pretty much aligned with Luigi, Sune and Volker here I
think. I'll try to add a couple of extra aspects to feed the thinking on this
topic.
On Friday 19 April 2024 11:04:33 CEST Carl Schwan wrote:
> I know this might be a controversial idea, but I would like to pro
Hello,
On Friday 19 April 2024 14:03:01 CEST Luigi Toscano wrote:
> Nate Graham ha scritto:
> > I expect a vast amount of discussion to result from this proposal, and I
> > think that's great. It'll be good to talk about it. But I suspect in the
> > end we'll likely not achieve 100% consensus, and
Hello,
Wished to react to a point in there. :-)
On Friday 19 April 2024 17:33:02 CEST Volker Krause wrote:
> On Freitag, 19. April 2024 11:04:33 CEST Carl Schwan wrote:
> > * We currently don't have a stable branch for Framework and it takes often
> > up to one month for fixes to be deployed. The
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 4:39 AM Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,
>
Hi all,
>
> Unsurprisingly I'll be pretty much aligned with Luigi, Sune and Volker
> here I
> think. I'll try to add a couple of extra aspects to feed the thinking on
> this
> topic.
> On Friday 19 April 2024 11:04:33 CEST Carl S
Others have made convincing arguments for not tying the projects together from
an engineering point of view, which I find easy to agree with. I also like the
current monthly KF schedule in that it allows me to submit MRs early on in a
Plasma development cycle and use them in Plasma shortly after
12 matches
Mail list logo
