On February 14, 2015 04:25:24 PM you wrote: > > But do you have a better solution in mind for this problem? I do. As far as I understand the problem, kconf_update creates a configuration file to record the fact it ran, even though the file was empty. This solution works as it disables the kde4 scripts, and relies on the fact that their are now KF5 related scripts to run. Once they start popping up, the same issue will arise, I believe.
My idea is to get kconf_update to run more reliably against all configurations, and to have it not create a practically empty configuration file to record the fact it ran against a missing file. But I'm not sure how I want to tackle it, as it seems the only way to do it is to have an index of the update scripts be built, which I don't want to require unless it is absolutely necessary. But I have a feeling it is. Regardless, it isn't going to make it for 5.7. > > If the choice is between > > 1) a very small number of very recent migration scripts needing an update to > add Version=5 (as has been done in plasma) > > and > > 2) all the users trying Plasma 5 losing all their KDE SC 4 settings (at > least in all apps that ever had any kconf_update script) > > ... shouldn't we pick option 1? From a user's point of view it seems much > less of a problem (and it only affects early adopters, on apps where we > didn't notice the missing Version field, further reducing the problem > space). > > On the other hand this commit, i.e. option 2, means that for at least > another month, everyone trying Plasma 5 and KF5-based apps "for real" (not > just in a test account) will be very disappointed at losing all settings - > no? If its ok to break backwards compatibility at this point, I'm happy to revert my patch and move on from there. Having a version is a good thing to have in a file anyways, and requiring it is fine by me. As long as everybody upgrades now to KF 5.7, and everything is made to run against it, we shouldn't face too much pain now. It should be mentioned in the Changelog, and there is a warning printed, so its not an invisible change. Since KF 5.7 is already packaged, maybe we should let KConfig 5.7 go out as is. I'll revert my patch, and see what comes. If someone complains/files a bug report, I'll put my patch it again for 5.8 (preferably before the tagging date!). Otherwise we will continue with requiring the version in the file. Does that sound good to you? -- Matthew
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
