2015-06-18 2:15 GMT+03:00 Aleix Pol <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Alexander Potashev > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2015-06-18 0:01 GMT+03:00 Kevin Ottens <[email protected]>: >>> Bear with me I'll be partly acting from memory here... let's see something >>> like: >>> 1) KF5 releases are numbered YYYY.MM; >>> 2) Individual frameworks are numbered 5.N, N being incremented only if >>> there's been commits since the last KF5 release; >>> >>> [*] Note that IMO, that tuning should not involve going toward 5.N.M version >>> scheme. The 5.N only scheme was intentional and debated quite a bit already. >>> It's intentional to have a combination of very short cycles and feature + >>> bugfix on each releases. Packagers were skeptic about it but it's been >>> proven >>> to work now. >> >> Hi Kevin, >> >> 5.N.M numbering (or even X.N.M) is what Christian requested in the first >> place. >> >> Probing question: If I translate one string in kcoreaddons5_qt.po into >> Belarusian language, should we bump and release a new version of >> KCoreAddons because of that? > > At the moment, we're updating the version regardless you have a new string.
Aleix, I know. I asked about the suggested approach to skip version bumping when there were no commits in a framework, not about the current approach to releasing KF5. If we are going to recognize translation updates, framework releases will be needed every month in 99.9% of cases because translations are much more volatile due to the large number of supported languages. -- Alexander Potashev _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
