On Wednesday 15 of October 2014 10:58:58 Michele Calgaro wrote:
> >> - bug 2152: I haven't look at the details, but based on the two commits
> >> already made by Slavek it should not take long to fix.
> >
> > Yeah, I was already looking at it.  I'm tentatively working on digikam if
> > you or Slavek want to tackle koffice.
>
> I will not work on this bug since I want to complete bug 1859 first and
> eventually join bug 1850.
>

I have currently working on patches from bug 2110 and at the same time on the 
modifications tdebase in tde-packaging. As a result of renaming the icons 
need to be updated - now causes FTBFS.

> > Short answer: If I can technically make branching work in a somewhat
> > intuitive manner without overloading the servers Slavek's option 2 sounds
> > best.  This means we won't branch at this point anyway, so I have a bit
> > of breathing room to work on the site and such before RC1 release.
>
> In the worst case, I think it would be a good idea to at least create a
> temporary "development branch" where patches can be pushed while the
> hard freeze is in place for v14.0.0. After v14.0.0 is released, the
> changes made can be merged into the main trunk.
>

I am afraid that with the branches is the same as with the tags - after 
creating on the server branch synchronizes to users, but after remove on the 
server users will have to worry about removing branch == all the users 
themselves. This is not good. Therefore, I am not a fan of temporary branches 
on the server.

> Cheers
>    Michele
>

-- 
Sl�vek