Extra patch for KConfig 5.7 release

David Faure faure at kde.org
Sat Feb 14 19:54:51 UTC 2015

On Saturday 14 February 2015 14:30:17 Matthew Dawson wrote:
> On February 14, 2015 04:25:24 PM you wrote:
> > But do you have a better solution in mind for this problem?
> I do.  As far as I understand the problem, kconf_update creates a
> configuration file to record the fact it ran, even though the file was
> empty. This solution works as it disables the kde4 scripts, and relies on
> the fact that their are now KF5 related scripts to run.  Once they start
> popping up, the same issue will arise, I believe.
> My idea is to get kconf_update to run more reliably against all
> configurations, and to have it not create a practically empty configuration
> file to record the fact it ran against a missing file.  But I'm not sure how
> I want to tackle it, as it seems the only way to do it is to have an index
> of the update scripts be built, which I don't want to require unless it is
> absolutely necessary.  But I have a feeling it is.
> Regardless, it isn't going to make it for 5.7.
> > If the choice is between
> > 
> > 1) a very small number of very recent migration scripts needing an update
> > to add Version=5 (as has been done in plasma)
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > 2) all the users trying Plasma 5 losing all their KDE SC 4 settings (at
> > least in all apps that ever had any kconf_update script)
> > 
> > ... shouldn't we pick option 1? From a user's point of view it seems much
> > less of a problem (and it only affects early adopters, on apps where we
> > didn't notice the missing Version field, further reducing the problem
> > space).
> > 
> > On the other hand this commit, i.e. option 2, means that for at least
> > another month, everyone trying Plasma 5 and KF5-based apps "for real" (not
> > just in a test account) will be very disappointed at losing all settings -
> > no?
> If its ok to break backwards compatibility at this point, I'm happy to
> revert my patch and move on from there.  Having a version is a good thing
> to have in a file anyways, and requiring it is fine by me.  As long as
> everybody upgrades now to KF 5.7, and everything is made to run against it,
> we shouldn't face too much pain now.  It should be mentioned in the
> Changelog, and there is a warning printed, so its not an invisible change.
> Since KF 5.7 is already packaged, maybe we should let KConfig 5.7 go out as
> is.  I'll revert my patch, and see what comes.  If someone complains/files a
> bug report, I'll put my patch it again for 5.8 (preferably before the
> tagging date!).  Otherwise we will continue with requiring the version in
> the file. Does that sound good to you?

Yep, sounds good. Thanks.

David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Working on KDE Frameworks 5
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 173 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20150214/8bd6a42c/attachment.sig>

More information about the release-team mailing list