On 10/01/10 01:15, Tejas Guruswamy wrote:
On 09/01/10 13:16, Rajko M. wrote:
Talking about shooting oneself in the foot. As explained above, versions are used to have reference to certain build, so that users by simply rolling back to previous version can identify good and bad versions.
Current repository structure defeats that efficiently. Developers have to resort to serious tools that users can't use.
I understand the problem you are putting forward; at least, unlike some others, you have a reasoned argument.
But I think the misunderstanding comes from a difference in expectations of what the openSUSE KDE team is supposed to do.
You are thinking that they should have all recently released versions from the current major branch of KDE packaged at any one time like KDE:42, KDE:43, KDE:44. So that it is possible to switch between each version till you get the right balance of bugs and fixes.
What actually happens is the KDE team has *one* version of KDE packaged at any one time. The most recent released version in KDE:KDE4:Factory:Desktop because that is what will go into the next version of openSUSE and that is what needs work. The KDE team is not interested in any other version. (Okay, so UNSTABLE gets packaged too, but that's just automagic). STABLE is nothing but a testing ground for online updates for the most recent release, no extra work goes into that either.
Oh, Tejas, Tejas...... Apologies my friend but me thinks that there is either a language barrier or interpretation problem between the English language and whatever language KDE developers use :-( . It sounds very much like the sign my wife and I saw in Hong Kong some years ago which stated, "All Deliveries in Backside" (meaning, all deliveries to be made at the back of the shops). "STABLE is nothing but a testing ground....." No, STABLE means not unstable; not experimental; rock solid; not going to fall down; tried, tested and proven to work. Stable does not imply "testing ground". "Stable" is stable. "Unstable" is not stable, is experimental, very likely to fall over at any time. I feel that rather than defend the indefensible terminology which someone came up with in the last century, terms which describe closely what a repo is all about would be of immense benefit to everyone concerned and so do away with all the non-productive arguments about what this or that repo is supposed to do, or not to do, and if you want to do this then you need to use <this-repo> and not <that-repo>, and so on, and so forth, and "etc, etc, and etc" (The King and I) :-) . PRODUCTIVITY is what we all want and not wasting our time and energy on useless arguments (unless, of course, we have to respond to an inane response :-D ). BC -- Take the bull by the tail and look the facts in the face. W C Fields -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org