Re: new shakti.ath.cx mirror structure
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:04:37PM +0100, Karolina Lindqvist wrote:
> There is no fixed RC4 release in the CVS, since it is not separately tagged.
> At least as far as I can see. Instead it is continuously updated, and it is
> thus more of a CVS snapshot than a release candidate. The question with that
> is always when to make the snapshot? The separately packed RC4 snapshot is
> read protected, for some reason.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 01:06:27AM -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> Dirk Mueller wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >CVS HEAD is open for commits again for KDE 3.2 release.
> >
> I must say that I am not happy to hear this.
>
> I still am unable to compile three packages in KDE_3_1_0_RELEASE.
>
> <irony> So, we won't really concern ourselves with the bugs in the
> current release which won't even compile, we will just rush on with new
> features. </irony>
>
> I would like to suggest that I feel that this model of the development
> tree is WRONG -- that it contributes to buggy code. Yes I know that
> many projects do it that way -- and many projects produce buggy code.
>
> First I would like to suggest that we take a pause here. Release 3.1.0
> has a certain significance when compared to the competition: Windows.
> It was after that release that Windows went into feature bloat and
> change for the sake of change and never mind fixing the bugs. It
> finally reached the point before the release (or escape) of Windows 2000
> that the code was such a mess that nobody understood how it was supposed
> to work and a programmer with a phD in CS was assigned to try to fix it.
> He and a team of professional programmers were unable to do the job.
>
> My point is that we should be very careful not to in any way repeat the
> mistakes of MicroSoft Windows.
>
> As I understand the current model, the release is branched off and
> becomes the less important while HEAD continues immediately with new
> development and becomes the more important. I see this as the first
> problem. The current release should be the more important and work on a
> future release should be the less important.
>
> One model I have seen is simply not to branch the current release for a
> certain period of time with new features being worked on separately to
> be integrated into the current HEAD at the end of this post release
> development pause. What I see as the most advantageous part of this is
> the bugs do NOT need to be fixed twice -- that the new features are
> added to the release after a period of bug fixing.
>
> I would like to see this method made somewhat permanent. That the
> current release remains HEAD until it is decided that the final minor
> release has been made and only then is it branched off. Until that time
> all new features would be in a temporary branch and would have to be
> based on the new release.
>
> And, yes I know that this would make it more difficult to add new
> features, but would also make it easier to fix the bugs. And, would
> also require that the bugs be fixed in the current release.
>
> Whether it is with commercial software or open source software, users do
> not like to hear that the bug has been fixed (or will be fixed) in the
> next major release. They should not hear that. Major releases are for
> new features NOT for bug fixes.
>
> So, that is my manifesto. I would appreciate it if I received no
> arrogant and flippant comments about this. They do not in any way
> promote a useful discussion.
>
> I also wanted to make a note here so that everyone that reads this will
> know: I am a professional programmer retired on disability. I studied
> Electrical Engineering & Computer Science in college. There is much
> that I do not know about the KDE project. But I know a lot more about
> computer programing than some of the self taught hackers that have been
> telling me that I don't know anything (yes that is an arogrant remark).
> I don't appreciate it and you only make fools of yourself doing it.
>
> --
> JRT
I reported this msg from kde-devel just to underline that, IMMO,
your doubts about KDE's development model are not echoes in the
desert.
Ciao,
Paolo
--
If Linux is not Unix then Windows are not Gates
Anonymous, XXI Century
Reply to: