El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 13:26:12, David Faure va escriure: > On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote: > > On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:05:49 PM David Faure wrote: > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 01:16:05 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > > > If we really want to decouple our releases and be more flexible with > > > > > doing > > > > > them i consider this change a requirement for any decision in that > > > > > regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each and every module has to have its own version number build in. I > > > > > guess > > > > > with the frameworks branch much of kdelibs already got that change > > > > > (no > > > > > idea > > > > > really, anyone with input?). But we have to do the same with the > > > > > rest > > > > > of > > > > > our modules. > > > > > > > > No idea about frameworks. David? Kevin? > > > > > > This is partly still under discussion. > > > > > > However the currently implemented solution is that each framework has a > > > versions number, but that version number can be upgraded in all > > > frameworks > > > at the same time, using a script. > > > > > > A future framework on top of all others, could provide the version > > > number > > > for all apps, much like the current kdeversion.h. Basically it would be > > > the > > > "SC" number, and not the version number of the libs themselves, as is > > > currently the case. > > > > But that SC number would be a lie. Because you only assume all modules are > > installed in the versions that were release as SC X.Y . You have no idea > > if > > the user or distro uses older or newer versions for some libraries, > > modules > > or apps. So that number has no information value. Perhaps some marketing > > value. But in bug reports it is useless. > > > > Do we release kdelibs as ONE package. Or do we plan to release many small > > packages? > > Many small packages, but all at the same time. So "based on KDE Frameworks > 5.0.1" will have some value in bug reports. > > However you're right, apps themselves should have their own version number, > maybe we can solve the same way as we do for the frameworks: by running a > script that updates the toplevel CMakeLists.txt in all modules before > releasing. > > > If each library gets released standalone. What if whe make the kde sc > > release 4.10.7. I assume only 70% of all libraries got commits since > > 4.10.6 > > because stuff is pretty stable by now (7th update). Do we still release > > ALL > > libs or only those that got changed? > > All libs, obviously. Who would take the time to run a diff and make really > sure that nothing changed? This is additional work for nothing and makes > everything more complex. Just like right now, we release kdeadmin or > kdetoys with every KDE SC release, even if nothing changed. > > > The same naturally goes for stuff like kdeedu now that it split. What if > > some application got no commits since the last minor release. Make a > > release anyway or skip it? For major releases i guess making a package > > anyway makes sense. Or not? > > I can't decide there, that's for the release team to decide, but IMHO if > it's all scripted and done all at once (KDE SC release), then it's simpler > to just re-release everything.
I agree with David here, just release everything, it's easier for everyone. Cheers, Albert _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
