Release Script

[Albert Astals Cid]

(Sorry sent too early)

El Dissabte, 30 de juny de 2012, a les 15:12:06, Albert Astals Cid va 
escriure:
> El Dimecres, 27 de juny de 2012, a les 17:21:28, Michael Jansen va escriure:
> > 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?
> > 
> > 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? Does this make a difference for our
> > packagers? Does it make it more difficult or more easy? So is that a
> > feature we want or not?
> > 
> > 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?

Speaking in the apps side (not frameworks)

I think it makes sense to release anyway since we are using the version
numbers of SC for the tarballs (which might not be a good idea), but i would
feel confused if this happens

4.9.0 gets releases of
kalgebra-4.9.0.tar.xz
ktuberling-4.9.0.tar.xz
okular-4.9.0.tar.xz

4.9.1 gets releases of
okular-4.9.1.tar.xz

4.9.2 gets releases of
kalgebra-4.9.2.tar.xz
ktuberling-4.9.2.tar.xz
okular-4.9.1.tar.xz

As a user i'd think, what happened to kalgebra-4.9.1.tar.xz and 
ktuberling-4.9.1.tar.xz ?

On the other hand we might want to use the *real* version of the application 
and not of the SC, then it might make sense to skip if no changes happen.

Cheers,
  Albert