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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Do we need a RC2 (please vote)
From:       Charles Samuels <charles () altair ! dhs ! org>
Date:       2000-10-09 7:25:12
[Download RAW message or body]


Is Casey actually making sense?! :)

Yes, this is a very very good idea.

A few modifications I have to propose to this proposal is that 2.0.x should 
have absolutely no new features at all.  KHTML shouldn't even have changes 
other than the most simple ones (stability).  This includes 
taskbar-out-of-panel.

If taskbar-out-of-panel is really as simple as I suspect, why not, but we 
really should get 2.0.x as stable and fast as possible before we move on.
(most importantly, stable).

-Charles (and his ramblings)

On Sun, 08 Oct 2000, Casey Allen Shobe wrote:
> My vote:  RC2 please, and post tar.gz sources on FTP, and allow somebody to
> make RPMs and DEBs and TGZs for various distros and put those on FTP as
> well. An RC needs more exposure, and this is the way to do it.
>
> As far as those who complain about waiting so long?  I've been waiting
> nearly a year now, playing with CVS's all along...it was merely 2 months
> ago that I deemed KDE2 stable and complete enough to start using primarily.
>  To me, it still doesn't feel *complete*.  I reinstalled linux today for
> the first time in a *long* time, and started up good ol' kde 1.1.2.  I'm
> using it now.  It feels nice and complete and above all, rock-solid.  I
> never was able to crash X with KDE1 like I could with last week's CVS.  I
> never did see programs crash all the time like I do in post-RC1.  KDE2 is a
> lot slower, but I realize that that's because of my small amount of memory,
> and am glad to buy more for the new features which KDE2 provides.  I want
> KDE2 final to be a rock-solid stable release, or pretty damn close anyways.
>
> And after 2.0 release, kde should be open to a few new features, but above
> all, I think it needs to be optimized for speed, stability, and minimal
> usage of memory.  Let's face it, KDE2 is utter bloat - a lot of things are
> hacky and inefficiently programmed.  This will do for 2.0, but I think that
> a lot of streamlining without the necessity of removing features.  And
> beyond that?  How about a kcontrol option to select KDE's functionality
> level (this is the future...), allowing more drastic things to be disabled
> for low-memory machines.
>
> I was showing off my system (athlon 600/64mb) to a unix-friend yesterday. 
> I showed him some of the cool new features throughout kde2 (which he hadn't
> ever tried) and he left here determined to download it right away. 
> However, even he remarked on the amount of time it took to load up
> konqueror after clicking on a folder icon on my desktop, and remarked
> something to the effect of "that's taking to long, why?", as he was used to
> KFM.
>
> Here's what I propose:
>
> 2.0 final - be stable and complete
>
> 2.0.1 - 	work primarily on stability + important bugfixes
>
> 2.0.2 - work primarily on speed and memory consumption + high priority new
> features + bugfixes - keep it stable, moreso if possible.
>
> 2.0.3 - Thsi should be known as a very clean, bugfee release, with nothing
> broken, that's nice and speedy as well - not too many new features, but the
> reimplementation of those which KDE1 had such as the ability to have a
> separate panel for the taskbar, etc. etc. - really really good ssl support
> with an updateable local database, JavaScript is improved - works on a lot
> more things now.  KHTML has a *lot* of fixes - it's getting very difficult
> for users to find broken sites that actually work in other browsers -
> konqueror at this point works with everything netscape 4.8 works with
> sitewise, with the possible exception of some javascript functions, java
> support is in general improved and actually works.  Toolbar configuration
> is much improved.  KMail has early IMAP support, possibly can embed a
> newsreader and support newsbrowsing, much like Outlook 9x does with the
> newsreader option - Archiving support added.  More applets come packaged
> with KDE.  MNG works much better now in konq - primarily due to
> improvements to QT by the trolls.  All in all a lot of new stuff, a LOT
> more stable, and even faster than 2.0 - this should be a release users know
> and love.
>
>  2.1 - work on lots of new features, full javascript support, multiple
> panels, dynamically resizeable in addition to static size options -
> floatable always-on-top panel option.  Konqueror now works very very well -
> It's very very difficult to find anything that breaks - it works better
> than Netscape 6/Mozilla - more things can be optionally embedded, more
> options for customizing the toolbar - really good DHTML, etc. support -
> Full support for any IE & NS extensions - option to change the browser
> string on the fly via the profile option - possible theme support for
> IE-look, NS4-look, NS6-look, Opera-look, NS3-look, etc.  Auto-hide option
> for full-screen window toolbars, menubars, etc., as in IE5.x.  Stability
> should be the primary focus still however - nothing should hinder that.
>
> 2.1.1 - 	work primarily on stability + important bugfixes
>
> 2.1.2 - work primarily on speed and memory consumption + high priority new
> features + bugfixes - keep it stable, moreso if possible.
>
> 2.1.3 - This should be known as a very clean, bugfee release, with lots of
> new features...
>
> In short, I love KDE1.1.2 for it's stability (and speed) - I love KDE2 for
> it's functionality.  Now let's bring the two together.
>
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000, Carsten Pfeiffer wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 12:43:59PM -0700, Kurt Granroth wrote:
> > > Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > > > I vote for a RC2 too - and it should be the _definite_ RC. And this
> > > > time we should release it too :)
> > >
> > > I agree with this.  We need a REAL release candidate.  This last one
> > > wasn't... somebody made a change where know kcminit seg faults on
> > > startup, for instance.  We need a release candidate where we can say
> > > "this *will* be KDE 2.0 except for urgent changes".  Period.
> >
> > I agree with this as well, we need a release candidate. For example, Qt
> > 2.2.0 had a few bugs that were introduced after the last beta. If we had
> > had a release candidate, at least in qt-copy, those bugs would have been
> > found before the release.
> >
> > KDE always made a difference in terms of quality and stability for
> > example compared to gnome, and I'd like to keep it this way.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Carsten Pfeiffer

>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

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