Hi Rafa,
Probably I've just seen too much bad examples. I saw all the crashes
during 4.1,
I had to live with the dbus bugs, wih kmix crashes. I can't even count
all the bugs I had to arrange me with going from 4.1 to 4.6 ;)
For now I have exactly 43 bugs "open".
And now when I updated to kde-4.6 I have to delete my panel and
re-create it every time I don't use my external monitor because it
doesn't resize.
And when I updated from 4.6.1 to 4.6.2 kmix stopped working correctly.
However when I report such bugs - most of the time nothing happens.
> I agree with you here but, I would add MHO: maybe 1 release in every 3
> should be just for "polishing" KDE SC 4.x. No new features just bug
> squashing, optimizing performance, fixing security issues, profiling,
> ... The other 2 releases would be the "normal everyday work".
>
> Maybe this would help make a "better" KDE (if that's possible ;)
Absolutly! I already thought about such "quality" releases and I think
its a great idea.
If the goal of a release if to improve stability and fix those bugs a
dev usually has no time for,
it would greatly reduce the amount of bugs that accumulated over time.
> Adding new features is not always bad (MHO, again). For
Of course, new features are what keeps software from bit-rot.
However, when something new is added, it should also be checked for
performance concerns, not only if it doesn't crash plasma ;)
Thanks again, Clemens
___________________________________________________
This message is from the kde mailing list.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
