New KDE Frameworks Versions as SRU

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 04:17:07 PM Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> 
wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 03:56:13 PM Harald Sitter wrote:
> >> >> There is a need for bugfixes, which unfortunately may or may not
> >> >> contain features. That being said, with frameworks being mostly
> >> >> libraries a 'feature' is a new function, which quite simply can not
> >> >> break existing functions by being there. C++ doesn't work like this.
> >> > 
> >> > I completely agree bug fixes are needed.  I think it's very unfortunate
> >> > that upstream decided to abandon their traditional post-release
> >> > support.
> >> 
> >> I think the solution to that is to get yourself into a position to
> >> influence the KDE decision making. Not blocking progress for the sake
> >> of blocking progress.
> > 
> > I did participate in the upstream discussion when the decision was taken.
> 
> So clearly the arguments for bugfix releases were not good enough.

My summary of the counter argument is something like "despite you packagers 
telling us the point releases are useful, we think they aren't and it would be 
less work if we didn't bother".  I wasn't the only packager in the argument, 
but I don't think they really cared.

> > I don't view it as blocking progress.  I think upstream giving up on
> > maintenance was anything but progress.  I view it as protecting our users.
> 
> I think that should be KDE's users. We don't produce a whole lot of
> software really.

We're the integrator, so it's up to us to deliver something that's reliable 
and consistent.  That particularly includes not messing up releases.  Users 
building directly from upstream source tend to be more technical, so they can 
better stand recovering from breakage.  Keeping the release stable and 
functional is our responsibility, not theirs.

> > I'm open to changing my mind in the future based on a demonstrated record
> > of consistent success.  I don't think that exists yet.
> 
> Fair enough.

Thanks,

Scott K