KDevelop and Frameworks

[Kevin Funk]

On Friday 04 July 2014 12:15:48 Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de> wrote:
> > On Friday 04 July 2014 01:08:13 Aleix Pol wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I just saw Alexander Richardson review request about deprecated
> > 
> > KSharedPtr
> > 
> > > and first thing I thought "why didn't I do that already?". Well, the
> > > thinking behind was to do a minimalistic port [1] while features were
> > > developed in master, so we could merge back easily.

Same intention here. Didn't want to do invasive changes as long as we keep 
merging back changes from master.

> > > KDevelop 4.7 has been branched now, KF 5.0 has been released, so it's a
> > > good moment to put it on the table.
> > > How do you guys feel about a: git merge frameworks?

+1

> > Fine with me. I'll work on 1.7 until its released anyways and that should
> > give
> > me enough time to setup a kf5 toolchain.
> > 
> > Speaking of which, we will have to update our wiki HowToCompile page, and
> > at
> > least announce it also on our user lists, the planet and our website.
> > There
> > are, after all, a lot of people who build kdev* from master. Furthermore,
> > I
> > would appreciate it, if either of those who successfully built KDevelop
> > frameworks can document that in every detail. Paste your kdesrc-buildrc
> > and
> > dependent included configuration files. Create a list of frameworks that
> > KDevelop requires.
> > 
> > Also, I'm not sure how much master and 1.7 diverged. If there happened a
> > lot,
> > I vote for branching off master into a "legacy" branch just for people
> > that

Do we really need that? 4.7/1.7 *is* legacy and we should just try stabilizing 
that one, not yet another branch.

> > stick to KDE 4 for now. Feature development will go to master/kf5 of
> > course.
> > Finally, I want to know what our GSOC students think of this (CC'ed).
> > Would it
> > be OK for you to setup a KF5 toolchain and continue your work there? If
> > not, I
> > guess it would be fine if we go the "legacy" way proposed above, and
> > you'll
> > continue your work there. Once GSOC is over, we can merge/rebase it on
> > frameworks.
> > 
> > Bye
> 
> That's a good point, maybe it would be interesting to wait until GSoC is
> over to release a 4.8 version, so users can take advantage of the on-going
> GSoC projects.
> 
> I don't think the GSoC students should change the platform they work on in
> the middle of the project.
> 
> Aleix

Personally I'm not to fond of another 4.8. We should just focus on KF5 now for 
feature development and focus on 4.7/1.7 for stabilizing. I'd consider this 
the last KDE4 release. Otherwise we'll have to merge back changes which causes 
additional work-load (And we still could not do invasive changes to the 
frameworks branch, which is required to get rid off kdelibs4support and 
friends).

Regarding GSoC: I think it depends on the GSoC project.

For both Denis and me it probably makes sense to base our work directly on 
KF5. Personally, I think both projects would fit into a shiny KF5 release 
announcement. So people also have a good reason to adopt the KF5 version of 
KDevelop early.

Sergey's work is already part of 4.7/1.7, hence he should continue working on 
these branches.

Makes sense?

Greets

-- 
Kevin Funk