Syncing ECM release number with KF5

[Michael Palimaka]

On 04/04/15 19:44, David Faure wrote:
> On Saturday 28 March 2015 05:49:01 Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 28/03/15 03:48, Alex Merry wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the
>>>> major component.
>>>>
>>>> This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to
>>>> download
>>>> the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script
>>>> which
>>>> downloads the tarball to build it.
>>>>
>>>> That is bad and it is not necessary.
>>>>
>>>> Let's sync the major number for the next release.
>>>>
>>>> At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make
>>>> ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are
>>>> happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it
>>>> can use the 4th version number component.
>>>
>>> I have no particular objection, although I think "doubling the complexity"
>>> of scripts is overstating things a little.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>
>> Is ECM actually part of KF5, or just happens to be released alongside
>> it? (I thought the latter, hence the different version).
> 
> The initial idea was "it' happens to be released alongside, when necessary".
> 
> I.e. as a "marketing" message: you can use ECM without using KF5.
> But, well, this modularity exists for the rest of KF5 too (you can use 
> KArchive without using KIO), so this would still be clear if the version 
> number was aligned.
> 
> I also saw it as a way to not include it if it didn't change, but in practice 
> there's always at least one change every month, usually more ;)
> 
>> FWIW the different version doesn't bother me at all as a downstream.
> 
> And it doesn't bother me as the release dude - I have one if() in the version 
> file ;)   (so, I also disagree with "doubles the complexity").
> 
> But since both Stephen Kelly and Alex Merry (maintainers of ECM) are in favour 
> of switching, I'll make the switch.
> 

Will ECM move from kdesupport to frameworks too?