Future frameworks releases

[Sebastian Kügler]

On Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:39:58 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> On Monday 08 June 2015 11:21:56 Benjamin Reed wrote:
> > On 6/8/15 11:02 AM, Eric Hameleers wrote:
> > > The only sane way forward is that every Frameworks release contains
> > > all Frameworks tarballs, regardless of updates since the previous
> > > public release. Every Framework should adhere to the overall version
> > > number.
> >
> > Yeah, this proposal makes no sense to me.  If you want to individually
> > manage a library with an independent numbering scheme, then shouldn't it
> > be a separate/external project?  The whole point of the "framework" is
> > to provide a monolithic thing that has everything you need.
> 
> If that's the point of frameworks, being that monolithic thing, then indeed 
> you are right. But I really hope it isn't.

It's not about being monolithic, it's about stable and reliable interfaces, 
version numbers and APIs are a big part of that, and that's why frameworks 
can't just be removed and added back from one release to another, and why 
version numbers need to be consistent across the whole set of frameworks.

Introducing exceptions increases the complexity of dealing with frameworks, 
their value really is in shared processes and requirements.

I am strongly against watering it down. If some library is better off with its 
own versioning scheme and release process, then it simply should not be part 
of our Frameworks releases, but something else (which is entirely possible, 
still).

Cheers,
-- 
sebas

Sebastian Kügler    |    http://vizZzion.org    |     http://kde.org