On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Luigi Toscano <luigi.tosc...@tiscali.it> wrote: > On Saturday, 17 September 2016 00:01:59 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote: >> 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. > > I don't see how it affects the tag. The tag is the global one for > Applications, the internal version > <application> --version or the about info shows the version. > > >> >> For that reason i'd very much like to see it harmonized. > > The problem here is to have an easy way to update the version data on > bugzilla. I think that this can be automated.
Considering in some cases applications don't set it from CMake but from a header or cpp file, i'd be wary of saying this can be automated. It could be automated fairly easily (using Riddell's code and a list of appropriate products) if PIM projects all followed the same universal version numbers. > > -- > Luigi Regards, Ben