On Thursday 12 July 2012, Michael Jansen wrote:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:21:40 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
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
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 20:00:27 Michael Jansen wrote:
Do you really think forcing an update of unchanged modules for our
convenience will help those of us trying to use plasma for mobile
devices?
That's the work of the distributor for those mobile devices.
Exactly as i
On 2012-07-12, Michael Jansen k...@michael-jansen.biz wrote:
I agree with David here, just release everything, it's easier for everyone.
No it is not. It is a waste of bandwidth, resources and time for all involved.
Agreed. at least for me as a packager, handling a tarball is taking at
least
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
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
El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 19:29:46, Michael Jansen va escriure:
On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:21:40 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
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
I agree with David here, just release everything, it's easier for
everyone.
No it is not. It is a waste of bandwidth, resources and time for all
involved.
Why do you ask for opinions of you are in possession of the truth?
I do not understand why you are saying that.
Do you
So you guys have some artificial version 4.x.49. which
downloads sources from a branch and builds them? Artificial in not
released by kde?
What you call an artificial version is a mean for us to provide the
users who want to do it a package they can install and update whenever
they
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 04:04:42 PM Michael Pyne wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 18:27:42 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I think we did it for a time. At least i remember some a new
snow storm, a new snapshot commits by dirk. But no idea how
they got released/packaged.
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 22:22:38 Michael Jansen wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 04:04:42 PM Michael Pyne wrote:
On Saturday, July 07, 2012 18:27:42 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
I think we did it for a time. At least i remember some a new
snow storm, a new snapshot commits by
Gentoo already supports betas, RCs, etc. in Portage though they have a
different nomenclature (e.g. I think 4.7.0~beta1 would be 4.7.0_beta1 in
Portage). But in order to support generic KDE snapshots that nomenclature
shouldn't change too much across future releases. As long as it's mostly
On Sunday, July 08, 2012 02:30:13 Michael Jansen wrote:
Gentoo already supports betas, RCs, etc. in Portage though they have a
different nomenclature (e.g. I think 4.7.0~beta1 would be 4.7.0_beta1 in
Portage). But in order to support generic KDE snapshots that nomenclature
shouldn't
On 2012-06-20, Michael Jansen i...@michael-jansen.biz wrote:
Current Version: 4.7.1-SNAPSHOT (in pom.xml) | Task: Build a minor release
A little bit about versioning, quite many distributions[a] has adopted '~'
in version numbers. It has a very special meaning:
'~' sorts before ''
meaning that
Am 2012-07-06 11:00, schrieb Sune Vuorela:
On 2012-06-20, Michael Jansen i...@michael-jansen.biz wrote:
Current Version: 4.7.1-SNAPSHOT (in pom.xml) | Task: Build a minor
release
A little bit about versioning, quite many distributions[a] has
adopted '~'
in version numbers. It has a very
On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 07:25:13 PM Michael Jansen wrote:
I do not disagree here, BUT have in mind that since we have private
packages (used/tested by distro packagers before the release actually
happens) so YOU is a broad term including the packagers.
For KDE would say someone
If you have a problem with us setting up weekly snapshots in that
format, then you may have a point because i am thinking about that
use case. Afaik some distros provide weekly snapshots straight from
our branches. If our release system is fully scripted we could make
weekly snapshot
I do not disagree here, BUT have in mind that since we have private packages
(used/tested by distro packagers before the release actually happens) so
YOU is a broad term including the packagers.
For KDE would say someone else should decide. We could make a release
4.8.80.1 if we have to
El Dimecres, 27 de juny de 2012, a les 17:39:03, vau escriure:
On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:16:05 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
That works fine for me, though unfortunately we usually have to re-package
some tarballs due to fixes that are needed into the release. How do you
fit
this
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
On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:16:05 AM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
That works fine for me, though unfortunately we usually have to re-package
some tarballs due to fixes that are needed into the release. How do you fit
this particularity into this way of working?
With my config manager head on i say
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
modules.
No idea about frameworks. David? Kevin?
The version has to live in one agreed upon place in all modules we have. The
release script will know where to look for it, how to parse it, increase
it. That way it is possible to say build the next minor release and the
script will do
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:56:51 PM Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Michael Jansen info@michael-
jansen.bizwrote:
2. Make the necessary build-system changes to use this version information
for the .SO names.
IMHO this is wrong, the numbers tagged to the
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 08:44:09 PM Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Michael Jansen info@michael-
jansen.bizwrote:
**
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:56:51 PM Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Michael Jansen
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Michael Jansen i...@michael-jansen.bizwrote:
**
On Thursday, June 21, 2012 08:44:09 PM Andreas Pakulat wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Michael Jansen i...@michael-jansen.biz
wrote:
**
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:56:51
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Michael Jansen i...@michael-jansen.bizwrote:
2. Make the necessary build-system changes to use this version information
for the .SO names.
IMHO this is wrong, the numbers tagged to the end of a shared-object thats
used as a shared library really have
26 matches
Mail list logo
