Future frameworks releases

[Christian Mollekopf]

On Tuesday 09 June 2015 01:02:52 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Boost is essentially equivalent to KF5:
> 
>    - lots of libraries
>    - some depend on others, some don't
>    - some libraries get updated almost every release, others are hardly
>    updated
> 
> Boost includes all libraries (except if they are retired entirely) and bump
> version for all libraries at the same time.
> 
> Is KF5 really that different? that special?
> 
> IMHO KF5 should follow the same rules Boost has been using for years. They
> seem to work :-?

>From the boost FAQ:
"How can the Boost libraries be used successfully for important projects?

Many of the Boost libraries are actively maintained and improved, so backward 
compatibility with prior version isn't always possible. Deal with this by 
freezing the version of the Boost libraries used by your project. Only upgrade 
at points in your project's life cycle where a bit of change will not cause 
problems. Individual bug fixes can always be obtained from the boost 
repository."

While freezing the version may work for the typical low-level utilities boost 
provides, I don't think it's a good idea at all for what is essentially a 
collection of largely unrelated libraries. Library maintainers can no longer
express what has changed, dependencies get bumped without control, and if you 
want to develop your application in a controlled fashion (which means bumping 
the required library only if actually necessary, assuming a non idea 
testcoverage scenario), you esentially have to fork every framework you're 
using.

I'm exaggerating a bit to make my point ;-)

But no, I don't think boost is the same as frameworks.

Cheers,
Christian

> 
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 1:28 AM, David Faure <faure at kde.org> wrote:
> > Hello packagers,
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > --
> > David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
> > Working on KDE Frameworks 5
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > release-team mailing list
> > release-team at kde.org
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team