Please don't get me wrong but naming these patches under name of KDE will make people confuse. That will lead people to think that it is just KDE-related. So my suggestion is naming is something like qt-15.3-communityN that will let everyone take these patches whether if they are using KDE or not.
Ömer Fadıl Usta PGP key : 0xfd11561976b1690b about.me/omerusta Johannes Zarl-Zierl <johan...@zarl-zierl.at>, 9 Haz 2021 Çar, 01:17 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > Am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021, 16:56:56 CEST schrieb David Faure: > > On mardi 8 juin 2021 15:04:20 CEST Nate Graham wrote: > > > That being the case, what is the problem with us tagging it as 5.15.3? > > > We would not be using our own version number but rather the one set by > > > upstream. If the issue is one of not wanting to mislead people into > > > thinking that this is some kind of officially sanctioned thing, could > it > > > be something like "5.15.3-kde-patches"? > > > > It's not just about official or not. One day the Qt Company *will* > release > > 5.15.3 (as per the KDE/FreeQt agreement), no? > > So we cannot release something called 5.15.3 which is in fact different > > (older) from what will one day be 5.15.3. > > > > I'm unsure whether we should stick to "those are patches, grab them" > > or, for convenience, giving it a version number that is more than 5.15.2, > > less than 5.15.3, says it comes from kde, and allows multiple > releases.... > > Setting apart the technicalities of 5.15.3 vs 5.15.2.x vs 5.15.3.kde.N, I > think the best place to come up with a solution is the KDE side, not > downstream distributions: > > If we tell people "this is just a bunch of patches, but you should really > apply them" we create a much bigger problem that nobody can tell for sure > anymore whether that particular distro version of Qt does contain the > patches > or not. If not for the packagers we should provide somewhat canonical > versions > for ourselves and save ourselves some headaches over bug triaging... > > Cheers, > Johannes > >