On 12/10/2014 04:11 AM, Sl�vek 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