| 1 |
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 11:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether |
| 3 |
> it's better than the current stable release? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Exactly. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> (I realise that isn't a perfect patch count...) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Exactly. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I think at this point it does more harm than good to be lagging behind |
| 12 |
> the current upstream kde - last time I checked the kde bugzilla |
| 13 |
> wouldn't even accept bug reports for the kde currently marked stable |
| 14 |
> as it was too old, and if bugs can't be filed then it's clearly |
| 15 |
> "unsupported upstream" and time to upgrade. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
KDE 3.5.0/1 had grave bugs, leaving users with lost addressbooks and such. KDE |
| 18 |
3.5.2 is not even out of our 30 days testing period and I have still a few |
| 19 |
patches enqueued to be applied. I can live with users complaining, but that |
| 20 |
doesn't mean it's not going on ones nerve. Especially when developers fall |
| 21 |
into the chorus, it's getting uneasy. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's ready, when it's ready. Really. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Carsten |
Archives