On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Andrew <a.star...@gmail.com> wrote: > If its developers really think that users should stick with 1.4 they > aren't doing a good job promoting that. > > [1] http://amarok.kde.org/ > [2] http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/Download:Kubuntu > [3] http://amarok.kde.org/wiki/Download:Source > > - Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
Well this part of the announcement of Amarok 2.0 at least made it clear there were a number of regressions: "It is important to note that Amarok 2.0 is a beginning, not an end. Because of the major changes required, not all features from the 1.4 are in Amarok 2. Many of these missing features, like queueing and filtering in the playlist, will return within a few releases. Other features, such as visualizations and support for portable media players, require improvements in the underlying KDE infrastructure. They will return as KDE4's support improves." -- http://amarok.kde.org/en/releases/2.0 This was noted on http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/16533/ "do not remove Amarok 1.x.x from jaunty or from other future releases." However not many people voted and it did not attract the attention of the developers. Would the developers feel that having upstream mark releases that are stable but have many outstanding regressions as "Early Adopter Releases" would make their lives easier? Would it have made a difference in this case? And would having a version clearly marked as an "EAR" release help you decide whether you'd download, compile and install it for personal use? As a (technical) user if I noticed that a distribution had switched to an EAR release of something I cared about this might help me understand whether I wanted to upgrade. It may also help upstream avoid "should KDE 4.0 have been released" style flamewars. -- John C. McCabe-Dansted -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
