From kde-release-team Wed Apr 30 23:33:29 2014 From: Michael Pyne Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 23:33:29 +0000 To: kde-release-team Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle Message-Id: <9027999.hWYKWuOlky () midna> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-release-team&m=139890071201942 On Wed, April 30, 2014 11:28:26 =C0lex Fiestas wrote: > As for the backporting, you could use bugzilla (even via api) to get a li= st > of everything that has been fixed, get the SHA and backport it > automatically, that will ease a lot the process. Is there any reason we can't do this? Even if it's a good idea to have = downstream packagers do the testing of this we can't really think it's a go= od = idea for every downstream to duplicate the work of automatically generating= a = stable branch and coming up with slightly different KF5 x.y+z releases. In this scenario of automated backporting we would still want to take = responsibility for tagging at the very least so that the downstreams have a = consistent release to tag against. > Also ideally, we should break with this tendency of "upstream/downstream" > and you should become upstream, I would love to see opensuse (and others) > keeping the release you picked maintained in a branch. I think this is wishful thinking. I mean, it would be nice to have happen a= s = well, but they can't all have that much extra manpower lying around with = nothing to do. Work they do to act as a virtual upstream is work they can't= do = for their downstream duties, so you're asking them to stop doing something = they're doing now to pick up for kde.org duties. They could just as fairly ask for us to start handing downstream packaging = chores. Regards, - Michael Pyne _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team