sitter created this revision. sitter added a reviewer: mart. Herald added a project: Frameworks. Herald added a subscriber: kde-frameworks-devel. sitter requested review of this revision.
REVISION SUMMARY an ad-hoc discussion on #plasma-devel suggests the science isn't quite in on whether RCCs are in fact always better. on the one hand simple profiling suggested for plasma use cases it may be ever so slightly faster in cold boot scenario. on the other hand the actual rcc code supposedly is fairly inefficient in how it access the disk and manages memory. this currently puts us in a situation where rcc and !rcc may be viable depending on the specific scenario of a package. (depending on disk type, size of rcc, loading, ram constraints, operating system). if someone wants to see rcc be default it's likely that improvements need to be made to Qt first. in any event actually getting some solid profiling before deprecation would be greatly appreciated. is rcc always better? why is it better? if it isn't always, what are the criteria that make it preferred over flat files? does the disk type (rotating/!rotating) matter? etc. etc. TEST PLAN - cmake && make pass - plasma-pa no longer raises deprecation warnings REPOSITORY R290 KPackage BRANCH no-deprecate REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D19383 AFFECTED FILES KF5PackageMacros.cmake To: sitter, mart Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
