From kde-release-team Wed May 21 21:29:10 2014 From: Michael Pyne Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:29:10 +0000 To: kde-release-team Subject: Re: Fwd: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle Message-Id: <2415786.r9j7FxK403 () midna> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-release-team&m=140070762531830 On Wed, May 21, 2014 22:40:07 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 16:12:50 Kevin Ottens wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 May 2014 11:28:45 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:17:15 Kevin Ottens wrote: > ... > > > > > This type of branch got actually > > > > discussed before making the initial proposal, it's not that we don't > > > > like > > > > the idea at all, it's that we don't feel confident to make it work at > > > > that > > > > point in time. > > > > > > Even with a single stable branch owner? > > > > Yes, that's the exact option we thought about, but you need someone > > willing > > to do the job. > > shouldn't in theory each library in frameworks have a maintainer, who is > responsible for that library, and wouldn't this be the obvious person who > maintains also the stable branch of the library ? Sort of (and I would volunteer to do this for the one module I maintain). But not every frameworks module has an assigned volunteer, and not all volunteers would necessarily also want to maintain a separate stable branch. But beyond that, there's also the possible issue that all of these stable branches when integrated together would still have regressions. You'd really still want to have an "integration manager" to volunteer to ensure the units of Frameworks still work well when combined. Regards, - Michael Pyne _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team