Moving KDevelop to Release service coverage?

Friedrich W. H. Kossebau kossebau at
Thu Oct 21 17:57:59 BST 2021

Am Donnerstag, 21. Oktober 2021, 09:37:51 CEST schrieb Milian Wolff:
> On Mittwoch, 20. Oktober 2021 20:22:55 CEST Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Disadvantage:
> > The awkward release-service-oriented branch names and version numbers. I
> > would propose to use the (with xzy generated from the release
> > service data) approach here, so the major and minor number is still under
> > KDevelop control and to match whatever semantics it has, while the patch
> > level is based on the Release service number.
> We could also bump the version numbers to be in line with the other KDE gear
> applciations, if that's needed. But I have to admit that I don't really
> know what exactly you are talking about here - can you give a more concrete
> example? We already use after all the way I see it?

Release service scripts hook into the sources to optionally provide version 
numbers by changing in the toplevel CMakeLists.txt file these lines if 
--- 8< ---
--- 8< ---

Applications can then use these variables to calculate their version number:
e.g. by mapping it 1:1 (example Kate, KDE Gear 21.12.0 -> Kate 21.12.0)
--- 8< ---
--- 8< ---
or using those numbers to calculate an ever-increasing patch-level number
(example Konversation, KDE Gear 21.12.0 -> Konversation 1.8.21120):
--- 8< ---

# Bump KONVERSATION_BASE_VERSION once new features are added
--- 8< ---
or do someething else or just ignore it and manually maintain an own scheme.

The branch names created by the Release service though will always be named 
"release/", matching the year quarter cycle.

For other version numbers like SO version numbers Release service provides 
nothing, that is left to projects.

Back to KDevelop:
Given KDevelop has public API for plugins, there needs to be some sense in the 
version number pointing to ABI/API compatibility. The would be hard to 
use here at least with the capabilities of cmake, which relies on the semantic 
versioning scheme to compare version compatibility.
And when we agree that KDevelop should continue promoting its plugin feature, 
3rd-party projects need a sane way to check which API version they are 
building against.
That is why I suggest to have KDevelop define the major & minor parts of the 
version itself as before, increasing the minor on API breakages and the major 
on big changes (like 5->6 for Qt6 port). While incrementing the patch level by 
deriving from the release service numbers.

So KDevelop's toplevel CMakeLists would do this to define the version:
--- 8< ---


--- 8< ---
That way things are automated and no one needs to stand by every release time.
One catch though: given every quarter the master branch is branched into a new 
stable branch, if someone does an ABI breakage in the master branch they also 
need to remember to bump the minor version if not done since the last 
branching, as well as the KDEVELOP_SOVERSION and the KDEV_PLUGIN_VERSION.
Can we expect us to manage to care for that?

Side comment: the latter two could be calculated from the major & minor 
version, and perhaps KDEV_PLUGIN_VERSION even be changed to be the 
KDEVELOP_SOVERSION? What is the offset for KDEV_PLUGIN_VERSION, and would 
there be any reason for bumping it differently from KDEVELOP_SOVERSION?

To help people who want map KDE Gear version to the KDevelop version they are 
using, the KDE Gear number could be given in brackets after the app version 
(e.g. PIM apps do that, KMail as "Version 5.18.2 (21.08.2)").

> > So, who would be in favour, who would not be in favour?
> Let's go for it, I say!

Good, another +1 added to my collection :)


More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list