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

List:       kopete-devel
Subject:    Re: [kopete-devel] RFC:  Kopete 0.12.1
From:       Olivier Goffart <ogoffart () kde ! org>
Date:       2006-06-08 11:52:44
Message-ID: 200606081352.48864.ogoffart () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Le jeudi 8 juin 2006 12:28, Thiago Macieira a écrit :
> Oleg Girko wrote:

> The policy is there to guarantee that we don't release newly-broken stuff.
> The branch is frozen for a reason.

Yes of course.

But Kopete 0.12.1 (or .2) will not be a newly-broken stuff,  it will be tested 
as a separate release during months 

>
> You have known all along that Kopete 0.11 is part of KDE 3.5. You should
> have backported the bugfixes to it.

Most of bugfixes have been backported
But there we speak about "feature fix" ie new features that "fix" problem due 
to their lack in 0.12  (exemple: the new chat style engine which replace the 
broken old one,  or the muc improvement in jabber, or the support of more jep 
to be more standard compilant)  

> New features can be backported now too, as long as you follow the rules.

Nice:  then what rules does Kopete 0.12 not follow ?

You accept to backport all feature one by one, but not the whole Kopete ?
backporting kopete as a whole will be infinitively more easy.

Also, by backporting only few feature, we risk to backport code that rely on 
others code that have not been backported, and introduce bugd

> If the big problem is kopete being in kdenetwork, then we can just remove
> 0.11 from KDE 3.5. Problem gone.

Can we ?
Then ok, let's remove kopete from kdenetwork 3.5.

Just that i think that the solution is ridiculous:  We don't want to introduce 
new bugs, but it's ok to have a serious regression (no more im client)

but also count application that rely on kopete  (dcop script, kmail 
integration, ...)  that would have just kdenetwork as dependencies

> But adding 0.12 to it is not acceptable. Who is going to review ALL
> changes, to make sure they are Ok? Remember it must be someone different
> from the person who wrote the code in the first place.

good point.
but there is always solution, we are enough developper to review eachothers 
code.

>  This is not the first time packagers have had to deal with this issue:
> Kopete releases standalone versions from time to time. It has happened
> before and it may happen again. They should have learnt by now.

This is the first time it is a standalone package only.

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kopete-devel mailing list
kopete-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel


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