Release Script (KF5)

[Michael Jansen]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 07:21:40 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dijous, 12 de juliol de 2012, a les 13:26:12, David Faure va escriure:
> > On Wednesday 27 June 2012 17:21:28 Michael Jansen wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 25, 2012 01:05:49 PM David Faure wrote:
> > > > On Monday 25 June 2012 01:16:05 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > > > If we really want to decouple our releases and be more flexible
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > them i consider this change a requirement for any decision in that
> > > > > > regard.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Each and every module has to have its own version number build in.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > with the frameworks branch much of kdelibs already got that change
> > > > > > (no
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > really, anyone with input?). But we have to do the same with the
> > > > > > rest
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > our modules.
> > > > > 
> > > > > No idea about frameworks. David? Kevin?
> > > > 
> > > > This is partly still under discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > However the currently implemented solution is that each framework has
> > > > a
> > > > versions number, but that version number can be upgraded in all
> > > > frameworks
> > > > at the same time, using a script.
> > > > 
> > > > A future framework on top of all others, could provide the version
> > > > number
> > > > for all apps, much like the current kdeversion.h. Basically it would
> > > > be
> > > > the
> > > > "SC" number, and not the version number of the libs themselves, as is
> > > > currently the case.
> > > 
> > > But that SC number would be a lie. Because you only assume all modules
> > > are
> > > installed in the versions that were release as SC X.Y . You have no idea
> > > if
> > > the user or distro uses older or newer versions for some libraries,
> > > modules
> > > or apps. So that number has no information value. Perhaps some marketing
> > > value. But in bug reports it is useless.
> > > 
> > > Do we release kdelibs as ONE package. Or do we plan to release many
> > > small
> > > packages?
> > 
> > Many small packages, but all at the same time. So "based on KDE Frameworks
> > 5.0.1" will have some value in bug reports.
> > 
> > However you're right, apps themselves should have their own version
> > number,
> > maybe we can solve the same way as we do for the frameworks: by running a
> > script that updates the toplevel CMakeLists.txt in all modules before
> > releasing.
> > 
> > > If each library gets released standalone. What if whe make the kde sc
> > > release 4.10.7. I assume only 70% of all libraries got commits since
> > > 4.10.6
> > > because stuff is pretty stable by now (7th update). Do we still release
> > > ALL
> > > libs or only those that got changed?
> > 
> > All libs, obviously. Who would take the time to run a diff and make really
> > sure that nothing changed? This is additional work for nothing and makes
> > everything more complex. Just like right now, we release kdeadmin or
> > kdetoys with every KDE SC release, even if nothing changed.
> > 
> > > The same naturally goes for stuff like kdeedu now that it split. What if
> > > some application got no commits since the last minor release. Make a
> > > release anyway or skip it? For major releases i guess making a package
> > > anyway makes sense. Or not?
> > 
> > I can't decide there, that's for the release team to decide, but IMHO if
> > it's all scripted and done all at once (KDE SC release), then it's simpler
> > to just re-release everything.
> 
> I agree with David here, just release everything, it's easier for everyone.

No it is not. It is a waste of bandwidth, resources and time for all involved.

Do you really think forcing an update of unchanged modules for our convenience 
will help those of us trying to use plasma for mobile devices?

Do you really think splitting up kdelibs and then releasing it more or less as 
one big blog is really helpful? Will it help people consider kde a more 
lightweight dependency?

I will implement the ability to skip release for unchanged modules (fully 
automated) and would ask everyone here to really think twice before asking the 
release team to keep the current practice of releasing everything. Because 
there is no reason.

Mike

> 
> Cheers,
>   Albert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-buildsystem mailing list
> Kde-buildsystem at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
-- 
Michael Jansen
http://michael-jansen.biz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20120712/caef8c3a/attachment-0001.html>