kf5 alpha 1 : modules, versions

[Kevin Ottens]

On Monday 03 February 2014 10:17:49 David Faure wrote:
> Any new module that should be added to this release, compared to TP1?
> 
> Should I include attica?

Since this question keeps popping up, let's integrate it. It should also be 
added to the list: http://community.kde.org/Frameworks/List

Also, since no one stepped up to say if it should be in or out, I'd say it 
should be with no declared maintainer until someone claims it.

> Any version number that should be upgraded in the modules themselves? I
> realize now that it's all called 5.0.0 everywhere already. The packages are
> properly numbered, but not the cmake variable containing the version or the
> *version.h files, which all say 5.0.0 already.
> 
> Option 1 -> it's too late, due to the tech preview saying 5.0.0 already.
> Option 1 bis -> this was intended from the start, no point in apps doing
> version checking on pre-release versions of kf5
> 
> Option 2 -> tech previews don't count, let's "downgrade" to 4.96.0
> everywhere.

I would prefer option 2. The whole point of the several releases to come is 
also to test our process for releases which include having proper version 
number everywhere.

Cheers.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20140203/fe9432a5/attachment.sig>