On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Luigi Toscano
<luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> On Friday, 16 September 2016 23:04:38 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Luigi Toscano
>>
>> <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> 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

Reply via email to