Nice screen grabs. I'll mildly recommend choosing non-Kubuntu branded screen shots. Otherwise people will think Trinity is Kubuntu-specific. That seems to be the consensus opinion when browsing the web. The fact that Trinity now builds and runs on Slackware 12.2 might somewhat alleviate that belief.
I revised the text and editorialized. No screen shots yet (I don't yet know how), but please review.
I don't have the hang of how to use the online editor. I don't know why when I paste text from a text editor the entire text is enclosed in a gray box. Please share if you know why or how to fix. I don't find the editor at all intuitive or friendly.
When were the KInfoCenter options moved to KControl?
Darrell
Looks like everything builds that I try to build. That is good news! Yet there remain some build issues.
I can't build libcarddav. For me that is a luxury package. I won't cry if the package is not installed. Yet I presume a handful of people will want to use the package. libcaldav builds fine here.
Do I presume correctly that libcaldav provides some additional functionality although libcarddav is not installed?
I can't build tqtinterface directly within the SVN directory. I have to copy the tqtinterface tree to a temporary location and build clean from there, much like building from a tarball. I can build tqtinterface within the SVN directory only once. Thereafter the build always fails. I can build all other packages directly within the SVN directories.
Is this a bug with tqtinterface?
I seem unable to build any package after I run 'make clean' within each package SVN directory. Perhaps this is a conceptual error on my part in the way I use the command in my build scripts. Yet seems that occasionally I should clean house before attempting a full build run.
What is the correct way to clean house in SVN?
I configured my build scripts to ccache. Yet I see no difference in build times. There are files in the cache, the log updates, the log and stats show there are cache hits. Yet the process took 8 hours overnight to build all core, support, and several non-core packages. I don't know whether 8 hours is the best I can do or whether I have something configured incorrectly.
Anybody have theories why I see so little difference?
I need to test building from source tarballs rather than svn.
Although not yet official, can we get a web link for developer testing of 3.5.12 source tarballs?
I still have about a half dozen non-core applications that need build scripts and testing. I use those packages regularly and at least those non-core packages need my attention if I am to fully embrace Trinity.
I have yet to test building the core packages with external support packages installed such as krb5, avahi, lua, OpenEXR, GraphicsMagick, and PostgreSQL.
Although I now presume a hard freeze except for fatal bugs, several non-fatal bugs and usability issues slipped through untouched in our recent discussions. I will sift through the discussions and submit formal bug reports and feature requests in the bugzilla.
Darrell
> Trinity 3.5.12 is not yet officially released, but I suspect we now are
close to a serious freeze. I would like to address future plans. This is
just my rambling.
Correct; the 3.5.12 release is in a little under 4 days so everything
should be finalized at this point.
> I have seen conversations about moving to cmake. Then there is the
tqtinterface support moving toward the goal of being compatible with
qt4.
> I presume moving to cmake means all build scripts have to be revised,
not
> to mention all the testing and debugging that follows such a change. I'm
exhausted with getting build scripts to function in Slackware, let alone
having to consider starting all over again.
No. My intention is to provide the older Automake system in parallel with
CMake for at least a couple of releases. This will allow time for the
CMake system to stabilize fully, while also permitting Trinity to build on
newer systems. The latter is what makes the CMake conversion so critical;
Automake (and therefore the Trinity build process) has already started to
fail on the latest distributions.
> In the short term I hope serious attention is provided after 3.5.12 to
dramatically reducing the number of existing bug reports and enhancement
requests.
I agree with this and will address it on-list after release.
> I'd like to see 3.5.13 focus solely on the bugzilla. Possibly too,
resolve
> significant bugs and enhancement requests from the original KDE 3
bugzilla. Apparent to me of late is that the KDE developers abandoned
3.5.x long before the final 3.5.10 release. The patches committed from
the
> Chakra project, Suse, and even Slackware is evidence of that. Many of
those patches are fairly old and never got merged into the KDE SVN tree.
I'd like to see cmake and qt4 support scheduled for a subsequent
release.
> Can the transition to cmake be scheduled for 3.5.14 or 3.6? New bugs
will
> be introduced once the transition to cmake begins, thereby fattening the
bugzilla. This is what happened with the original KDE developers. They
always focused on bling and seldom spent serious time adding polish to
what already existed.
CMake support is critical to the continued viability of the project, and
therefore I don't think it can wait. Breakage concerns are minimal, as it
will be provided fully in parallel with the existing build system.
Qt4 support is another matter. Without significant help I honestly don't
see that becoming viable for at least several releases. However, work can
slowly continue on it without the risk of breaking existing software, as
the Qt4 portion of the compatibility layer is completely isolated from the
Qt3 portion.
> The release schedule for Trinity does not have to coincide with Ubuntu
releases. If 3.5.13 focused on bugs and minor enhancments, 3.5.13 could
get released in only two or three months. I think the Trinity schedule
should be independent of Ubuntu.
Not sure here. Ubuntu is a primary consumer of the Trinity project, in
addition to having one of the fastest release cycles (6 months) of the
various distributions Trinity supports. As a result, having the releases
synchronized has worked out fairly well in the past.
> Dramatically reducing the bugs and enhancement requests in 3.5.13 would
provide a nice long-term stable desktop. That then would provide
breathing
> room to migrate to cmake and qt4.
> My own hope is 3.5.13 focuses on bugs and minor enhancements, not whole
new features. That is, add the polish the original KDE devs never added.
Create the stable desktop that KDE 4 isn't.
Working on it! ;-) Remember that unfinished features can be disabled for
release...
Just my $0.02.
Tim
Trinity 3.5.12 is not yet officially released, but I suspect we now are close to a serious freeze. I would like to address future plans. This is just my rambling.
I have seen conversations about moving to cmake. Then there is the tqtinterface support moving toward the goal of being compatible with qt4.
I presume moving to cmake means all build scripts have to be revised, not to mention all the testing and debugging that follows such a change. I'm exhausted with getting build scripts to function in Slackware, let alone having to consider starting all over again.
In the short term I hope serious attention is provided after 3.5.12 to dramatically reducing the number of existing bug reports and enhancement requests.
I'd like to see 3.5.13 focus solely on the bugzilla. Possibly too, resolve significant bugs and enhancement requests from the original KDE 3 bugzilla. Apparent to me of late is that the KDE developers abandoned 3.5.x long before the final 3.5.10 release. The patches committed from the Chakra project, Suse, and even Slackware is evidence of that. Many of those patches are fairly old and never got merged into the KDE SVN tree.
I'd like to see cmake and qt4 support scheduled for a subsequent release. Can the transition to cmake be scheduled for 3.5.14 or 3.6? New bugs will be introduced once the transition to cmake begins, thereby fattening the bugzilla. This is what happened with the original KDE developers. They always focused on bling and seldom spent serious time adding polish to what already existed.
The release schedule for Trinity does not have to coincide with Ubuntu releases. If 3.5.13 focused on bugs and minor enhancments, 3.5.13 could get released in only two or three months. I think the Trinity schedule should be independent of Ubuntu.
Dramatically reducing the bugs and enhancement requests in 3.5.13 would provide a nice long-term stable desktop. That then would provide breathing room to migrate to cmake and qt4.
My own hope is 3.5.13 focuses on bugs and minor enhancements, not whole new features. That is, add the polish the original KDE devs never added. Create the stable desktop that KDE 4 isn't.
Darrell
> And you have cookies and javascript enabled?
Nope.
I somewhat understand cookies, but JS? The bane of the internet? I hate JS. I have a slow enough internet connection as is. And I never have trusted JS. At all.
Yes, I use NoScript. I still hate JS.
Seems to work with those enabled, but I discovered I have little patience at the moment. I tried to paste text and the formatting is incorrect. I'm irritated I have to use JS and my internet connection has been horrible the past few weeks. Not to mention the 8 hours every day required to build these packages.
I'll try later. I'm not in a good mood all of a sudden. In the mean time I'm attaching a text file to modify the bottom of the developer's page.
This patch is in the Slackware koffice 1.6.3 build set. I don't know what the patch provides.
http://slackware.mirrors.tds.net/pub/slackware/slackware-12.2/source/kde/ko…
The date of the patch is Aug 28, 2008, which is about when 3.5.10 was released, but about a year after koffice 1.6.3 was released. Possibly yet another patch the KDE developers refused to merge.
Darrell
Darrell,
I haven't forgotten about your offer to help with the release notes /
what's new document. I think the Wiki is a perfect medium for us to
collaborate and get a professional quality document together; thoughts?
I have put up a preliminary page here:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/wiki/bin/view/Documentation/Releases_3_…
What I can do is pick through the SVN commit logs and add a list of what
is new from 3.5.11 to that Wiki page. Then maybe you could go through
each item and write a short description of what is new about the feature,
and throw up a screenshot or two highlighting how to use / access the
feature.
Would this work for you? Do you have a different (better) idea of how to
create the release notes?
Thanks!
Tim
