Proposal for branching policy towards KF5

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Dimecres, 24 de juliol de 2013, a les 23:05:55, Michael Pyne va escriure:
> On Fri, July 19, 2013 00:21:21 you wrote:
> > After more live discussion with Sebas and Marco plus Aaron over a video
> > chat, we came up with the following setup for the workspace repos (*) :
> > 
> > - the development branch for their next feature release (based on Qt5/KF5)
> > will be "master".
> > - *before* this happens, however, kdesrc-build / kde-build-metadata /
> > projects.kde.org will need to be improved so that tools (kdesrc-build and
> > possibly build.kde.org) can automatically select "the latest Qt4-based
> > branch" (i.e. master everywhere and 4.11 for the workspace repos), on
> > demand. This would also be the opportunity to implement "latest *stable*
> > branch" which is 4.11 for most modules right now, but could be at some
> > point 4.12 for most and 4.11 for workspace repos.
> > Adding a similar generic selection for qt5/kf5, we would end up giving 3
> > options to people who compile from sources: stable, latest-qt4, or
> > qt5/kf5-
> > based.
> 
> First note: There's a lot of different mailing lists with at least some
> interest in this discussion, so I've mailed them all for informational
> purposes... but let's keep the discussion limited to the kde-core-devel
> mailing list!
> 
> Back on topic, I have made an initial draft specification [1] for what this
> logical module group layer would look like.
> 
> In addition, there is a sample JSON file in the kde-build-metadata git
> repository, called "logical-module-structure" that one can view to get a
> feel for the proposed syntax/semantics.
> 
> I didn't want to write another parser, but JSON has no native comment
> support, so the documentation [1] is on community.kde.org (though perhaps
> that's for the best).
> 
> For those with no clue what I'm talking about, the original thread from kde-
> core-devel is available from [2].
> 
> A point of concern is that currently we already have a concept similar to
> this, for i18n. It's possible to specify in the projects.kde.org management
> interface a "stable" or "trunk" branch for translation purposes. I don't
> know the translation infrastructure well enough to see how this proposal
> would impact that feature; I assume we'd want to move scripty (& friends)
> over to using this at some point if we go through with it, but it's
> probably easy enough to keep both techniques on whatever release checklist
> we're using now.

[I18N_HAT] I'd appreciate if you guys decide on something :D Not so long ago 
we had to write support for the projects.kde.org branches thing when we 
already had our nice set of scripts and now you say we'll have to build 
support for something different? It's good that we never removed our internal 
scripts and they are the authoritative source, that way removing the 
projects.kde.org support is trivial :D [/I18N_HAT]

> > At this point I think this still needs a green light from the release
> > team,
> > though.
> 
> They are now CC'ed for review.
> 
> One clarification I should make is that I also received a recommendation to
> investigate migrating our current dependency data into this new JSON file if
> possible. 

You mean something like kde-build-metadata? Neither i18n nor releasing uses 
that file.

Basically from release I don't see how that affects us, we use the data from 
the release-tools module that is de-coupled from what you mention, no?

Cheers,
  Albert

> I put the effort into doing this as it would also help make the
> implementation of some kdesrc-build misfeatures relating to dependency-data
> additions a bit easier, as there's no need to construct an AST and a
> parser. Additionally it would permit 'soft' dependencies, which are useful
> for modules that can utilize optional features but don't have required
> dependencies on other git modules.
> 
> However that can, and probably should, be considered separately (though I'll
> take comments now, if you have them).
> 
> [1]: http://community.kde.org/Infrastructure/Project_Metadata
> [2]: http://markmail.org/message/4l3yqerga7mfiit5
> 
> Anyways, thanks for your interest and please let me know if this will work
> to solve the problem at hand. If so I will start on integrating within
> kdesrc- build, and working with the sysadmins to support within the
> continuous integration infrastructure.
> 
> Regards,
>  - Michael Pyne