On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:46 PM Volker Krause <vkra...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Friday, 29 March 2019 20:54:54 CET Ben Cooksley wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 6:45 AM Johannes Zarl-Zierl > > > I fear that a mandatory reviews would add too juch strain on smaller > > > teams. If there's just one person with an intimate knowledge of the > > > code-base, plus two co-developers, then who should do the reviews? > > > > > > How about a distinction based on importance of a project instead? I.e. > > > mandatory reviews for frameworks and any app that wants to be included in > > > KDE apps releases. Non-mandatory reviews can then also come with a > > > "price" to pay: if CI errors are not dealt with in a timely manner, you > > > should be free to disable the CI for administrative reasons... > > While this does seem like a nice solution, unfortunately for many > > repositories it isn't a case of disabling CI coverage for it, but also > > CI coverage for everything that depends on it. In the case of > > KContacts, this would also impact on parts of Extragear and Calligra > > (who depending on their exact requirements would either lose a > > dependency being available, or lose all of their CI coverage). > > > > This is why i've not pursued this as an option in the past, because > > it's not fair on other projects that don't have anything to do with > > another project aside from being a user of it's interfaces to lose > > their coverage, simply because the project they depend on is broken. > > I agree that anything on the CI level would be merely a workaround for this at > best. I'd rather suggest we address this at the source by turning the > externally used modules into frameworks. We did that last year already for > KHolidays and Syndication who were used by Plasma among others. KContacts, > KCalCore and KMime should follow that next IMHO. > > The next time window to do that relatively painlessly is coming up after the > 19.04 applications release I think, and all of those have been part of the > KDE4-era kdepimlibs module that complied with KF5-like ABI guarantees, so the > necessary work should be limited hopefully. Extra review of the public > interfaces would certainly help with making this happen I think.
This would certainly help resolve many of the issues I think, because then the build issues should be mostly contained to one specific Product, which makes this much easier to work with in the long term. > > Regards, > Volker Cheers, Ben