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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Bugs against the Essen branch
From:       Inge Wallin <inge () lysator ! liu ! se>
Date:       2010-09-23 12:24:21
Message-ID: 201009231424.21331.inge () lysator ! liu ! se
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:59:33 zander@kde.org wrote:
> On Thursday 23. September 2010 11.03.46 LukasT.dev@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm Krita developer, let me share you my non-involved view.
> > 
> > > Recently the Nokia testers have started to report bugs against the
> > > Essen branch.  This is part of the Nokia effort to open up the
> > > development process and put it more into the open, something I think
> > > we should be grateful for.
> > 
> > Cool move from Nokia! Why they started to test Essen? Is there any
> > particular feature they are dependent on when testing that is not in
> > trunk?
> 
> Thats a good question indeed; I've seen various patches gone in that were
> rejected in trunk before and will cause big compatibility issues.
> As Inge said, Nokia intends to release against a feature branch. So this is
> with features not accepted by the community. (like r1174172)

Which of course nobody has asked for.  As always, all patches will pass 
through the review process before going into trunk. I don't understand why you 
keep bringing this up, as if somebody was trying to sidestep the established 
processes.

> I'm a bit stumped how he can say with a straight face that reporting bugs
> *to* the koffice community bugtracker in a diverging branch of KOffice
> with not accepted patches of the koffice community is a good thing.

Are you saying that branching in general is bad?  Because that's what 
branching is: adding code that is not (yet) accepted by the community. But 
even so, over 99% of the code in the branch is shared and most bugs will be 
common to between the branch and trunk.

I think it would be better if we didn't discourage development, even if that 
development has to wait 2 months until it gets into trunk.


> I think the question phrased by Inge is missing the point entirely; the
> question is why Nokia is forking off the main branch in the first place.
> The main branch is stabilized for release and Nokia is intending to
> release too. So why the hell are we not using the same codebase?

First, I strongly object to your wording "fork off".  This is a branch that is 
going to be short lived and used for development during the freeze period.  A 
fork is something that is intended to live on beside trunk and maybe in the 
long run take over. Why are you using such inflammatory words?

Second, I thought that was obvious?  They have needs for developing features 
that are not going to be part of the 2.3 release.  And to be honest, most of 
the bugfixes for 2.3 are contributed by Nokia paid people and they are
committed to trunk and then synced to the branch.  I don't see the problem at 
all.  

Between the alternatives "keep the development closed by using an internal 
bugzilla" and "get the occasional bug reported that is not in trunk", I 
clearly think the second is best. Now, the reason for my question was of 
course that I want the second to happen with as little impact as possible and 
to see how we can work together for mutual benefit.
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]