Future frameworks releases

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Tuesday 09 June 2015 10:08:06 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> On Monday 08 June 2015 18:47:06 Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > 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.

A use case trumped by... one person (AFAIC). Really when I look at the thread 
here and the thread on k-f-d I only see you pushing hard for it and almost 
everyone else moaning.

> 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.

And it's hard to not point that perhaps the reasoning leading you to "part of 
that exercise is to have them properly versioned" is tainted by your personal 
opinion. Note that I'm not blaming here, this kind of "after the facts" 
rationalization is human and utterly common.

> 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.

I think it's been pointed several times that it'll be generating work for 
others to various degrees.

David doesn't like it but found a way to mitigate the effects for him. I think 
that all the packagers I've seen on this thread don't like it either (with 
various level of dislikes), some might live with it still and workaround it. 
Honestly, I don't see a great deal of support for that idea.

Beside, I hope it's not only me but I tend to expect people to show some 
respect for the space they enter.
When joining someone to live under his roof for a while, I respect the customs 
of the people living there and make such customs my own, I don't rush to the 
kitchen to reorganize it to my liking/interest[*].

> > 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.

Well, yes, of course, "if you follow my demands, then we wouldn't have to make 
an exception"...

Regards.

[*] Note I'm not saying such customs are then frozen. Since a new person 
joined, which will create new interations, after a while the customs will 
change gradually. The kitchen might even get reorganized in the end but for 
sure in a very different way than if I rushed in with my own preconceived 
ideas.[**]

[**] OK... it's metaphor day apparently. :-)
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20150609/091d93d0/attachment.sig>