10 Dec
2014
10 Dec
'14
2:41 a.m.
On 12/10/2014 04:11 AM, Slávek Banko wrote:
I agree that we should have a meta-bug for R14.1.0. It
probably does not
matter it will renamed an existing 2233 or create a new one.
Regarding the meta-bug for R14.0.x. I would suggest for each 'patch' release
separate meta-bug. Thus, one for R14.0.1, separate for R14.0.2, and as well
as for next patch releases. It allows to plan assignment bug reports for each
patch release. A meta-bug also will then be an overview of bugs fixed in any
particular patch release.
Ok, we are saying the same thing :-)
I would suggest for patch releases not focus only on
the number of fixed bugs.
Substantial could be, for example, the importance of fixed bugs. Sufficiently
frequent release of new versions also seems like a good card viability of the
project.
Agree as well. Anyhow substantial or major bug fixes would probably be better done in
minor releases, not in the
maintenance ones. Or should be incorporated in the maintenance ones only after a
reasonable amount of test time.
IMO, maintenance releases should address bugs that do not require major rework/changes. I
think of them as a way to
improve v14.0.0 without major changes on it.
Instead I consider v14.x.0 releases at the same strength of the old KDE 3.5.x releases.
Just another 2 cents.
Cheers
Michele