On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Luigi Toscano <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, 16 September 2016 23:04:38 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Luigi Toscano >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Friday, 16 September 2016 22:52:32 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> It seems that KDE PIM, despite being part of the Applications release, >> >> doesn't align it's internal version numbers with the rest of the >> >> Applications release. >> >> >> >> This causes issues - as we've received complaints about various >> >> products (all being PIM products) missing versions on bugs.kde.org, >> >> due to this mismatch. It's also confusing for users. >> >> >> >> Can PIM please fall in line with the rest of Applications? >> > >> > I don't think this is required: many pieces of Applications uses a >> > different internal version. I'd really like to have this not enforced. >> >> I'd like to see it enforced. >> See https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335654#c7 for the confusion >> created (and Sysadmin effort taken). > > I understand it takes effort, but I strongly disagree with the enforcing. > >> >> It also means that the process of releasing applications can't be >> automated to create all the necessary versions, so someone has to do >> it manually. >> And chances are, it ain't going to be the application maintainer. > > The versions are defined in each repository; they can be extracted (by the CI, > by some other script) and compared with the list of available version for each > component. I.e. it can be automated even with different internal versions.
How would you version the tags in such a misaligned world? At the moment it's very confusing as to what the version is - what the Application says it is or what the general release umbrella says it is. For that reason i'd very much like to see it harmonized. > > -- > Luigi Regards, Ben
