faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: So... this is 4.2?
by JRT on Tuesday 06/May/2008, @06:57
|
It is not my intent to spread FUD. I am asking for higher quality. Or, stating that higher stability in releases is needed.
You are correct that there is NOT one standard textbook method of doing software development (one dead Straw Man) -- there are many. However, there objectives which they must meet.
I do not see that the idea is long deprecated since other OSS projects use other models which I believe are better.
Next Straw Man. I made no suggestion about using many multiple branches. That is something which you brought up.
I am suggesting EITHER earlier branching for release branches or (not my first choice) having a stable and an unstable release branch. Such an extra branch might actually make thing easier. Do you have a citation that would support your unsupported statement (is this just your opinion) that having another branch would be "a maintenence [sic] nightmare for big projects". Quite the opposite is, in general, true.
Small projects can use most any development method. It is large projects that need something more structured. The KDE project has grown and it now needs more structured methods. The proof of this is what I stated: lack of stability and regressions along with new features that were in releases before they were ready for prime time.
You seem to have missed what I said about a "feature freeze". I said that pre-alpha branching can replace a feature freeze. Obviously, I don't think that the feature freeze accomplishes what I think is necessary or I wouldn't have suggested that change was needed. Some of the new features added to KDE 3.x.y didn't stabilize enough before they were released.
So, your argument reduces to 'no you are wrong'. Do you have any suggestions? Or, are you just going to use rhetoric and logical fallacies to defend the status quo? |
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
