[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: RFC: Life beyond 2.0
From:       Antonio Larrosa <antonio () larrosa ! org>
Date:       2000-08-26 16:28:03
[Download RAW message or body]

Alex Zepeda wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 01:18:55AM +0200, David Faure wrote:
> 
> > This sounds good to me - although people will look for inexisting
> > packages, like kdenetwork-2.1 which may not exist if only e.g. kdelibs
> > kdebase and kdeutils were released as part of 2.1.
> > So they have to mix kdenetwork-2.0 with kdelibs-2.1, kdebase-2.1 etc...
> > But why not.
> 
> Then perhaps a new version should be released changes or no.  This way the
> version number will be consistant.
> 

IMHO the proposal will make things much more complicated for users
unless we do as Alex says, and we release _every_ package each time.

But then, what is the benefit of this proposal ?

Are we really going to stop releasing an improved kdenetwork because it
doesn't have a complete translation ? I don't think this is the way to
go.

We release code, translators release translations. Otoh, we sometimes
release bugs and translators release untranslated strings. That's life,
and I don't think we should stop releasing a package just because there
are missing translations (except for "important" releases like
2.0 or 2.1)

What worries me is the sentence 

> Then perhaps a new version should be released changes or no

There's no point in releasing an old package as if it was a new one
(and this will only make users feel fooled).

Anyway, I agree that we need to release more often. 

I think the question is if we should consider missing translations
like showstoppers as we're doing right now. I don't think we should.

Just my opinion,

--
Antonio Larrosa Jimenez
KDE Core developer
antonio@larrosa.org        larrosa@kde.org
http://www.arrakis.es/~rlarrosa
KDE - The development framework of the future, today.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]