Future frameworks releases

Christian Mollekopf chrigi_1 at fastmail.fm
Tue Jun 9 08:08:06 UTC 2015

On Monday 08 June 2015 18:47:06 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> Hello,


> On Monday 08 June 2015 01:28:04 David Faure wrote:
> > The thread "Versioning of Frameworks" on kde-frameworks-devel has led to
> > the idea that some future frameworks (coming from the kdepim world) would
> > not be part of every Frameworks release, and would have their own
> > versioning scheme. This is at the request of their maintainer, Christian,
> > CC'ed.> 
> > For example:
> >   KF 5.12 would contain KImap 2.1
> >   KF 5.13 would not contain a KImap release
> >   KF 5.14 would contain KImap 2.1.1
> >   KF 5.15 would contain KImap 2.2
> > 
> > Would that work for you guys?
> Is it me or this whole thing is making most people life harder to please one
> person? I'm getting this feeling based on the past discussions on k-f-d and
> the replies here.

Your not pleasing a person, your considering a usecase.
I am in a special position because I not only have to represent my personal 
opinion (which is that proper versioning does more good than harm), but I also
have to ensure that we can rely on the frameworks we use in an enterprise 
environment in the long run, and part of that excercise is to have them 
properly versioned.

I'm sorry for the friction this causes right now, but in the long run I really 
don't see how this makes life harder for everyone else.

> It's still time to reconsider I guess.
> Note that I think that kdepimlibs should be mostly swallowed by KDE
> Frameworks. As much as I'd love to see it happen, I'm becoming less and less
> sure it can be to the expense of making weird exceptions like what's
> proposed.

If the Frameworks would be versioned (as opposed to timestamped) we wouldn't 
have to make weird exceptions in the first place.


More information about the release-team mailing list