From kopete-devel Thu Jun 08 21:21:55 2006 From: Thiago Macieira Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 21:21:55 +0000 To: kopete-devel Subject: Re: [kopete-devel] RFC: Kopete 0.12.1 Message-Id: <200606082321.55671.thiago.macieira () trolltech ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kopete-devel&m=114980175206914 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--===============1814026655==" --===============1814026655== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1612511.JnAlSmeOiF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --nextPart1612511.JnAlSmeOiF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Olivier Goffart wrote: >You accept to backport all feature one by one, but not the whole Kopete > ? backporting kopete as a whole will be infinitively more easy. Indeed it would, which is precisely the problem. Lots of problems could be overlooked because it's one big patch. Besides,=20 if it's one single commit, it would need to be someone outside of Kopete=20 to review it, since everyone in Kopete had a hand in that big patch. You'll be hard pressed to find someone to review it. >Also, by backporting only few feature, we risk to backport code that > rely on others code that have not been backported, and introduce bugd Which is why backporting the entire thing is dangerous, since we don't=20 know what relies on what, and what could be more broken now than in 0.11. >> 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. So you're proposing individual patches. I'm fine with that. But this must be truly reviewing, not just a formality. The rules are=20 there to ensure quality, not to hinder development. If you think it would be a waste of time to follow them, then don't and=20 advise kde-core-devel of the issue. You know my position, but I of course=20 do not speak for everyone involved. I'd much rather that the bugfixes were backported to 0.11, that KDE 3.5.4=20 included 0.11 and that a separate 0.12.1 release were made. Distributors=20 who still haven't figured out how to make separate packages deserve to=20 get problems anyways (IMO). >> 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. 0.10.2 was a standalone package only. =2D-=20 Thiago Jos=E9 Macieira - thiago.macieira AT trolltech.com Trolltech AS - Sandakerveien 116, NO-0402 Oslo, Norway --nextPart1612511.JnAlSmeOiF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEiJTzM/XwBW70U1gRAsEVAJ9Uf2lJZ1rzYml9C3qGpPjtE6WOPwCgkvJf I/MAAl/TKHmnryH/Mwpxfy8= =FAbp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1612511.JnAlSmeOiF-- --===============1814026655== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ kopete-devel mailing list kopete-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel --===============1814026655==--