KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

Alexander Neundorf neundorf at kde.org
Thu May 8 21:32:47 UTC 2014

On Thursday, May 08, 2014 22:08:06 David Faure wrote:
> [Taking k-c-d out, too much cross-posting]
> On Monday 05 May 2014 21:54:42 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > If we have more than 50 libraries, do all of them need a full new release
> > every month ?
> Not doing that leads to
> 1) a huge mess of versioning. The latest available version for each
> framework would be different, so how do you make sure you have the latest
> of each? And the "min required version" in each find_package would have to
> be increased manually, since it would no longer be the same everywhere.
> In a year we'd be at KArchive 5.3, KIO 5.7 required by KParts 5.1 required
> by KTextEditor 5.4, etc. etc.
> This seems extremely messy to deal with, for everyone.
> We decided long ago against this, for these very reasons.

Yes, I know, I see it exactly the same way.
That's the situation you have if you have a number of separate libraries. IMO 
it would be the correct thing if each of these libraries would actually 
specify the exact version of the other libraries they actually need... 
dependency hell.
OTOH this would mean I could update one or a set of the frameworks libraries 
if I see the need to, without having to update them all, just because they all 
require for simplicity the same version of all libraries.
That's why I still think we may have gone a bit too far with the splitting.
> 2) more work for me: every month, for each of the 61 frameworks, I'd have to
> decide which ones need to be released and which one shouldn't....

Well, if we say we have 61 independent frameworks libraries, ideally each 
should have a maintainer who takes care of releases, required dependencies 
etc., i.e. not one single person doing it for all.
I know we don't have enough maintainers in real life.

Just my 2c.


More information about the release-team mailing list