El Dimecres, 5 de juny de 2013, a les 21:17:14, David Narvaez va escriure: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: > > The point here is that I don't think the problem here is the Dependency > > Freeze but the Feature Freeze. > > > > Ok, this is not a "new" feature, but introduces (i guess) a reasonable > > chunk of new code to implement the same feature. To me that still seems > > like a new feature, so could you guys comment on the impact of "what if > > the new code we are adding is really bad". Would KGet crash like crazy > > all the time or one would just lose the nepomuk features? > > Not really, that'd be r1345874 in the 4.10 branch. This change > actually ports r1345874 to trunk, so in general the code will be > exactly as we have it right now on 4.10 except for the following 3 > exceptions: > > - At void NepomukStore::saveItem(const TransferHistoryItem &item) the line > > historyItem.setProperty(Soprano::Vocabulary::RDF::type(), > Nepomuk::HistoryItem::resourceTypeUri()); > > found in 4.10 is not included in trunk because this was used to work > around a bug in Nepomuk which no longer exists in Nepomuk2 > > - The changes from Nepomuk namespace to Nepomuk2 namespaces (this is > the only thing that makes the patch look large and intimidating) > > - At void NepomukController::setProperties(const QList<KUrl> &uris, > const QList<QPair<QUrl, Nepomuk::Variant> > &properties, const QUrl > &uriType) the use of Nepomuk::MassUpdateJob was removed in favor of > the Nepomuk2 DataManagement API which does the same (async) work. I > would agree to consider this particular change a new feature, so it is > a good idea to analyze what can go wrong here: This tags are applied > when you configure a group to automatically tag transfers in that > group. This would work with the new code (I've tested it) if it wasn't > for the fact that you almost cannot configure a group for autotagging > right now because of a separate bug. Since this bug hasn't been > reported, I expect that an issue around this piece of code would not > be of great impact because this feature doesn't seem to be widely in > use. In fact, the whole Nepomuk integration was not working at all for > some time until r1327893 and went unnoticed for a couple of months, so > that should give us an idea of the potential impact of an issue with > this code. > > Let me know if you have any questions. I'm attaching what would be the > patch to do the migration.
Ok, seems a pretty straighforward patch so it's ok for me. Anyone against granting the exception? Cheers, Albert > > David E. Narváez _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team