Akademy Redux: Release Team Members Propose New Development Process

At Akademy 2008, KDE Release Team members Sebastian Kügler and Dirk Müller discussed the future of KDE's development process. Describing the challenges KDE faces and proposing some solutions, they spawned a lot of discussion. Read on for a summary of what has been said and done around this topic at Akademy.

Our current development model has served us for over 10 years now. We did a transition to Subversion some years ago, and we now use CMake, but basically we still work like we did a long time ago: only some tools have changed slightly. But times are changing. Just have a look at the numbers:

  • KDE 0.0 to 3.5 took 420.000 new revisions in 8 years
  • KDE 3.5 to 4.0 took 300.000 new revisions in 2 years

Also, this year's Akademy was the largest KDE event ever held, with more than 350 visitors from every continent of the world.

This enormous growth creates issues both for the wider community, for developers, and for the release team. Patches have to be reviewed, their status has to be tracked - these things become progressively harder when the size of the project balloons like it currently does. The centralized development system in Subversion's trunk doesn't support team-based development very well, and our 6-month release cycle - while theoretically allowing 4 months development and 2 months stabilizing - often boils down to barely 50% of the available time suitable for new feature development.

KDE's current revision control system doesn't allow for offline commits, making life harder for people without a stable internet connection. Furthermore we're still looking for more contributors, so lowering the barrier for entry is another important concern.

Changing requirements

We will have to allow for more diversity and we must be able to accommodate individual workflows. Not everyone is happy with a 6-month schedule, not everyone prefers Subversion. Companies have their schedules and obligations, and what is stable for one user or developer is unsuitable for another. Meanwhile, new development tools have surfaced, such as the much-praised distributed revision control tool Git. Together with new tools for collaborating, new development models are emerging. KDE is in the process of adopting a much wider range of hardware devices, Operating systems (OpenSolaris, Windows, Mac OS) and mobile platforms such as Maemo. And we have an increased need for flexible and efficient collaboration with third parties and other Free Software projects.
Sebastian and Dirk believe it is time for a new way of working. In their view, KDE's development process should be agile, distributed, and trunk freezes should be avoided when possible. While there are still a lot of culprits in their proposal, KDE needs to get ready for the future and further growth.

Agile Development

The most fundamental idea behind Agile Development is "power to the people". Policies are there to avoid chaos, and to guide (but not force) people in any way.

What is Agile Development supposed to offer us?

  • Shorter time-to-market, in other words, less time between the development of a feature and the time users can actually use it
  • More cooperation and shortened feedback cycles between users and developers
  • Faster and more efficient development by eliminating some current limitations in team-based development processes.
  • Simplicity. Not only good in its own right, but it also makes it easier to understand and thus contribute to KDE development.

How can we do this?

To achieve this, we have to reflect upon our experiences as developers and share our thoughts on this. Our process should be in our conscious thoughts. Sebastian and Dirk talked about a specific lesson they have learned: plans rarely work out. As a Free Software project, we don't have fixed resources, and even if we did, the world changes too fast to allow us to reliably predict and plan anything. We have to let go. We should set up a process aimed at adaptation and flexibility, a process optimized for unplanned change.

This needs to be done in one area in particular: our release cycle. Currently, our release cycle is limiting, up to the point of almost strangling our development cycle. So Dirk and Sebastian propose a solution:

"Always Summer in Trunk"

Our current release process, depicted in the graphic below, can be described as using technical limitations to fix what is essentially a social issue: getting people into "release mode". Over 4 months, we develop features, then enter a 2 month freeze period in which increasingly strict rules apply to what can be committed to trunk. This essentially forces developers to work on stabilizing trunk before a release. Furthermore, developers need to keep track of trunk's current status, which changes depending on where in the release cycle KDE currently is, not taking into account diverse time schedules of both upstream and downstream entities. At the same time, many developers complain about Subversion making it hard to maintain "work branches" (branches of the code that are used to develop and stabilize new features or larger changes in the code), subsequent code merges are time-consuming and an error-prone process.

The proposal would essentially remove these limitations, instead relying on discipline in the community to get everyone on the same page and focus on stability. To facilitate this change, we need to get the users to help us: a testing team establishing a feedback cycle to the developers about the quality and bugs. Using a more distributed development model would allow for more flexibility in working in branches, until they are stabilized enough to be merged back to trunk. Trunk, therefore, has to become more stable and predicable, to allow for branching at essentially any point in time. A set of rules and common understanding of the new role of trunk is needed. Also, as the switch to a distributed version control system (which is pretty much mandatory in this development model) is not as trivial as our previous change in revision control systems, from CVS to Subversion. Good documentation, best practice guides, and the right infrastructure is needed. The need for better support for tools (such as Git) in KDE's development process does not only come from the ideas for a new development model though. Developers are already moving towards these tools and ignoring such a trend would mean that KDE's development process will clutter and ultimately become harder to control.

In Sebastian and Dirk's vision, KDE's current system of alpha, beta and release candidate releases will be replaced by a system which has three milestones:

The Publish Milestone

This is the moment we ask all developers to publish the branches they want to get merged in trunk before the release. Of course, it is important to have a good overview of the different branches at all times to prevent people from duplicating work and allow testers to help stabilize things. But the "Publish Milestone" is the moment to have a final look at what will be merged, solve issues, give feedback and finally decide what will go in and what not. The publish milestone is essentially the cut-off date for new features that are planned for the next release.

The Branch Milestone

This is the moment we branch from trunk, creating a tree which will be stabilized over the next couple of months until it is ready for release. Developers will be responsible for their own code, just like they used to be, but one might continue using trunk for development of new features. To facilitate those developers who do not want switch between branches, we could have a tree which replicates the classic development model. Developers are encouraged and expected to help testing and stabilizing the next-release-branch.

The Tested Milestone

The "tested" milestone represents the cut-off date. Features that do not meet the criteria at this point will be excluded from the release. The resulting codebase will be released as KDE 4.x.0 and subsequently updated with 4.x.1, 4.x.2, etc. It might be a good idea to appoint someone who will be the maintainer for this release, ensuring timely regular bugfix releases and coordinating backports of fixes that go into trunk.


A prerequisite for this new development model would be a proper distributed source code management system. Git has already stolen the hearts of many KDE developers, but there are other options out there which should be seriously assessed. Furthermore we need tools to support easy working with the branches and infrastructure for publishing them. Getting fellow developers to review code has always been a challenge, and we should make this as easy as possible. We also need to make it easy for testers to contribute, so having regularly updated packages for specific branches would be an additional bonus. Trunk always needs to be stable and compilable, so it might be a good idea to use some automated testing framework.

Under discussion are ideas like having some kind of "KDE-next" tree containing the branches which will be merged with trunk soon; or maybe have such trees for each sub-project in KDE. Another question is which criteria branches have to meet to get merged into the "new" trunk. Especially in kdelibs, we want to ensure the code is stable already to keep trunk usable. Criteria for merges into various modules have to be made clear. What happens if bad code ends up in trunk? We need clear rules of engagement here. How can we make it as easy as possible to merge and unmerge (in the case the code that has been merged is not ready in time for a release)?

Having a page on TechBase advertising the different branches (including a short explanation of their purpose and information about who's responsible for the work) will go a long way in ensuring discoverability of the now-distributed source trees. A solution also needs to be found for the workload around managing trunk. Especially if we have tight, time-based releases, a whole team of release managers needs to take responsibility. KDE's current release team has come a long way in finding module coordinators for various parts shipped with KDE, but currently not every module has a maintainer.

While there are still a lot of questions open, we'd like to work them out in collaboration with the KDE community. KDE's future revision control system is discussed on the scm-interest mailing list. Discussion on a higher level can be held on the Release Team's mailing list, and naturally KDE's main developer forum, kde-core-devel.

With the release of KDE 4.0, the KDE community has entered the future technologically. Though timescales for the above changes have not yet been decided upon, Dirk and Sebastian took the talk as an opportunity to start discussing and refining these ideas: it's time that KDE's primary processes are made more future-proof and ready for the new phase of growth we have entered.

Dot Categories: 


by Bráulio Barros ... (not verified)

KDE really needs to go in the Linux direction, as it is also a huge and rather dynamic project.

Where are the other akademy news? Only the two first days were published :(

by Aaron Seigo (not verified)

i think they just stopped calling them "day 1" and "day 2" and started giving the articles meaningful names =)

by Paul Gideon Dann (not verified)

I agree that KDE needs to go in a Linux direction. I'm gradually become aware, however, that there is a difference between the two projects' methodologies. Linus is the sole owner of the authoritative tree, and has several "lieutenants" that own their trees, etc... However, KDE relies strongly on a large number of equally-important contributors. I'm guessing that the hierarchical model that Linux uses isn't going to map to KDE so well (at least not for the time being). I guess KDE will keep a central repo, with the most active developers having direct push access, and more "fringe" contributors working either on their own repos or in sort of "workgroup clusters" (for those working on the same feature).

The big difference I think, is that there simply isn't one owner of the KDE project, like there is for Linux. Maybe that will change as DVCS methodology starts to take root. It'll be interesting to see.

by Janne (not verified)

When can we see the videos of the various talks that were held at Akademy?

by Tanguy Krotoff (not verified)

One thing that should be studied carefully I think, is the tools coming with Git and SVN.

For SVN I've been using for several years the awesome TortoiseSVN (yes works only under Windows...) http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/

So easy, so simple, TortoiseSVN simplifies all the hard work with a perfect UI.
Try it once, and it will be impossible for you to come back to svn command line.
This the reason I keep with SVN.

Question is, can we expect equivalent tools for Git in the near future?

A good UI above git/svn/... is a good way for "lowering the barrier for entry" and "is another important concern"

by joe (not verified)

Already exists for Hg so I think Git will follow