Review Request: Implement automatic scanning of source code for required data engines

[Kevin Kofler]

Sebastian Kügler wrote:

> On Monday, August 22, 2011 16:08:49 Marco Martin wrote:
>> i personally wouldn't dislike a kdelibs 4.8 as well, seems the decision
>> is taken tough :/
> 
> David said he didn't want three different branches (stable, unstable and
> ultra-unstable), so kdelibs has stable and frameworks branches, and I can
> actually understand that.

I think it makes no sense at all. People clearly want to work on kdelibs 4.8 
(at least I definitely do), why are we actively preventing them from doing 
that? Not doing a branch makes sense if we lack manpower, but here we're 
actively stopping the available manpower from doing their work! To be blunt, 
I'll start caring about 5.0 the day it (the workspace, not just the 
frameworks) hits Rawhide, and I suspect most other distro people feel the 
same. Right now, 4.x is what we ship in our stable releases (e.g. Fedora 15) 
and what we will ship in at least the next 2 releases (e.g. Fedora 16 and 
17), so that's what we need working and well-maintained.

> Maybe it makes sense to relax the freeze for once or twice in the stable
> branch though, so we don't all have to run patched libs on our systems.
> That's something we can take up on k-c-d the release-team mailinglist,
> though.

That could be agreeable, but I don't see the advantage over just doing 4.8.x 
releases, and keeping requiring kdelibs >= 4.n.m in kde-workspace 4.n.m as 
we always did.

        Kevin Kofler