> I understand this, I'm also developing software, and I wished it had fewer
> bugs. But in KDE I see many bugs that look like things were not tested at
> all.
At some stage the release maintainers have to draw the line, so it's
entirely possible that something was tested, and infact failed the
test but was shipped anyway. The individual developers try their best
to get things fixed by the release date but sometimes real life /
other things get in the way. If the general feeling is that releasing
the software is generally an improvement over the previous release
then it's worth releasing the software and people /distros can decide
if it's useful for them . The only other way you can do it is to do a
debian style release of when it's ready, which has it's disadvantages
too.
Few non-developers build KDE ( or any app ) from source on a regular
basis so many of these bugs are not found when the feature / fix is
applied to the software. Some of this can be reduced with test cases
but as with any contribution you generally have to either take what
your given ( including lack of test cases ) or not take it all.
Perhaps though, the distributions need to take some of the
responsibility here. As I see it, KDE isn't (generally) distributing
to the users directly, the individual distros are. I feel, It's really
up to them to device which version of KDE ( and with which patches
applied ) to ship to their users. KDE may release a new version,
however if it carries with it known bugs, they could very well decide
to hold off until an update is shipped.
Just my 2c, feel free to s/KDE/(correct KDE related naming convention)
Andrew
___________________________________________________
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.
