Release Script (KF5)

[Alexander Neundorf]

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 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 and every module has to have its own version number build
> > > > > > > in. I
> > > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > with the frameworks branch much of kdelibs already got that
> > > > > > > change (no
> > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > really, anyone with input?). But we have to do the same with
> > > > > > > the rest
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > our modules.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > No idea about frameworks. David? Kevin?
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is partly still under discussion.
> > > > > 
> > > > > However the currently implemented solution is that each framework
> > > > > has a
> > > > > versions number, but that version number can be upgraded in all
> > > > > frameworks
> > > > > at the same time, using a script.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A future framework on top of all others, could provide the version
> > > > > number
> > > > > for all apps, much like the current kdeversion.h. Basically it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > the
> > > > > "SC" number, and not the version number of the libs themselves, as
> > > > > is currently the case.
> > > > 
> > > > But that SC number would be a lie. Because you only assume all
> > > > modules are
> > > > installed in the versions that were release as SC X.Y . You have no
> > > > idea if
> > > > the user or distro uses older or newer versions for some libraries,
> > > > modules
> > > > or apps. So that number has no information value. Perhaps some
> > > > marketing value. But in bug reports it is useless.
> > > > 
> > > > Do we release kdelibs as ONE package. Or do we plan to release many
> > > > small
> > > > packages?
> > > 
> > > Many small packages, but all at the same time. So "based on KDE
> > > Frameworks 5.0.1" will have some value in bug reports.
> > > 
> > > However you're right, apps themselves should have their own version
> > > number,
> > > maybe we can solve the same way as we do for the frameworks: by running
> > > a script that updates the toplevel CMakeLists.txt in all modules
> > > before releasing.
> > > 
> > > > If each library gets released standalone. What if whe make the kde sc
> > > > release 4.10.7. I assume only 70% of all libraries got commits since
> > > > 4.10.6
> > > > because stuff is pretty stable by now (7th update). Do we still
> > > > release ALL
> > > > libs or only those that got changed?
> > > 
> > > All libs, obviously. Who would take the time to run a diff and make
> > > really sure that nothing changed? This is additional work for nothing
> > > and makes everything more complex. Just like right now, we release
> > > kdeadmin or kdetoys with every KDE SC release, even if nothing
> > > changed.
> > > 
> > > > The same naturally goes for stuff like kdeedu now that it split. What
> > > > if some application got no commits since the last minor release.
> > > > Make a release anyway or skip it? For major releases i guess making
> > > > a package anyway makes sense. Or not?
> > > 
> > > I can't decide there, that's for the release team to decide, but IMHO
> > > if it's all scripted and done all at once (KDE SC release), then it's
> > > simpler to just re-release everything.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> Do you really think splitting up kdelibs and then releasing it more or less
> as one big blog is really helpful? Will it help people consider kde a more
> lightweight dependency?
> 
> I will implement the ability to skip release for unchanged modules (fully
> automated) and would ask everyone here to really think twice before asking
> the release team to keep the current practice of releasing everything.

I think I mostly agree. It sounds like the correct thing to do.
I'm aware that this may somewhat contradict my posts to the versioning 
discussions on kde-frameworks...

But basically, if a library has not changed, I agree that it's version number 
should also not change.
Still all can be released again, so you can get everything at once if you 
need.

Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-buildsystem/attachments/20120727/557722db/attachment.html>