KDE Gear 21.08 release service schedule
Hi people, So that you know this is the release schedule the release team agreed on. https://community.kde.org/Schedules/KDE_Gear_21.08_Schedule Dependency freeze is in four weeks and feature freeze one after that. Get your stuff ready! Cheers, Albert
Re: Progress is good for us but bad for documentation
One thing the seems entirely missing is any documentation what so ever of craft's runtime confurable options. I'm talking things maintainers can do in their config scripts not the end-user config file which is self documented. On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 1:27 PM Frederik Schwarzer wrote: > > > On 6/9/21 6:02 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021, 01:20:23 CEST schrieb Frederik Schwarzer: > >> I would like to ask you to report such documentation to me. We see the > >> topic come up here and there but it then sometimes sinks into oblivion > >> again because it was part of a merge request that has then been merged > >> or so. > >> [...] > >> So what to report? Documentation that ... > >> - explains outdated technology or concepts like KDE 4 or HAL. > >> - has holes in it. For example a tutorial where you suddenly think, > >> you skipped an important step. > >> - you wish was there but you could not find it. > > > > Is this an effort with universal scope, or is there a limit? > > Obviously you are at least talking about the wikis. Are you also (at the > > current time) talking about other websites and/or application handbooks? > > It is meant as an open question. All answers welcome. Of course not > everything can be worked on now. But compiling a list of stuff to work > on will help pushing and coordinating the work. > > heers, > Frederik >
KDE CI: Frameworks » plasma-framework » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 477 - Still Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/plasma-framework/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/477/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 19:20:36 + Build duration: 1 min 44 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 10 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 11 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.plasma_iconitemtest
Re: Progress is good for us but bad for documentation
On 6/9/21 6:02 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: Hi, Am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021, 01:20:23 CEST schrieb Frederik Schwarzer: I would like to ask you to report such documentation to me. We see the topic come up here and there but it then sometimes sinks into oblivion again because it was part of a merge request that has then been merged or so. [...] So what to report? Documentation that ... - explains outdated technology or concepts like KDE 4 or HAL. - has holes in it. For example a tutorial where you suddenly think, you skipped an important step. - you wish was there but you could not find it. Is this an effort with universal scope, or is there a limit? Obviously you are at least talking about the wikis. Are you also (at the current time) talking about other websites and/or application handbooks? It is meant as an open question. All answers welcome. Of course not everything can be worked on now. But compiling a list of stuff to work on will help pushing and coordinating the work. heers, Frederik
Re: Progress is good for us but bad for documentation
On 6/9/21 6:02 PM, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: Hi, Am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021, 01:20:23 CEST schrieb Frederik Schwarzer: I would like to ask you to report such documentation to me. We see the topic come up here and there but it then sometimes sinks into oblivion again because it was part of a merge request that has then been merged or so. [...] So what to report? Documentation that ... - explains outdated technology or concepts like KDE 4 or HAL. - has holes in it. For example a tutorial where you suddenly think, you skipped an important step. - you wish was there but you could not find it. Is this an effort with universal scope, or is there a limit? Obviously you are at least talking about the wikis. Are you also (at the current time) talking about other websites and/or application handbooks? It is meant as an open question. All answers welcome. Of course not everything can be worked on now. But compiling a list of stuff to work on will help pushing and coordinating the work. heers, Frederik
Re: Progress is good for us but bad for documentation
On 09/06/2021 18:02, Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: Hi, Am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021, 01:20:23 CEST schrieb Frederik Schwarzer: I would like to ask you to report such documentation to me. We see the topic come up here and there but it then sometimes sinks into oblivion again because it was part of a merge request that has then been merged or so. [...] So what to report? Documentation that ... - explains outdated technology or concepts like KDE 4 or HAL. - has holes in it. For example a tutorial where you suddenly think, you skipped an important step. - you wish was there but you could not find it. Is this an effort with universal scope, or is there a limit? Obviously you are at least talking about the wikis. Are you also (at the current time) talking about other websites and/or application handbooks? Cheers, Johannes ... and API docs :) -- Ahmad Samir
Re: Progress is good for us but bad for documentation
Hi, Am Mittwoch, 9. Juni 2021, 01:20:23 CEST schrieb Frederik Schwarzer: > I would like to ask you to report such documentation to me. We see the > topic come up here and there but it then sometimes sinks into oblivion > again because it was part of a merge request that has then been merged > or so. > [...] > So what to report? Documentation that ... > - explains outdated technology or concepts like KDE 4 or HAL. > - has holes in it. For example a tutorial where you suddenly think, >you skipped an important step. > - you wish was there but you could not find it. Is this an effort with universal scope, or is there a limit? Obviously you are at least talking about the wikis. Are you also (at the current time) talking about other websites and/or application handbooks? Cheers, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
KDE CI: Frameworks » attica » kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 - Build # 60 - Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/attica/job/kf5-qt5%20SUSEQt5.15/60/ Project: kf5-qt5 SUSEQt5.15 Date of build: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 08:40:02 + Build duration: 2 min 16 sec and counting BUILD ARTIFACTS acc/KF5Attica-5.83.0.xml JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 3 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.providertest Cobertura Report Project Coverage Summary Name PackagesFilesClassesLinesConditionalsCobertura Coverage Report67% (2/3)23% (18/77)23% (18/77)11% (446/4008)9% (170/1936)Coverage Breakdown by Package Name FilesClassesLinesConditionalsautotests100% (3/3)100% (3/3)63% (75/119)28% (14/50)src21% (15/72)21% (15/72)10% (371/3592)9% (156/1814)tests.projecttest0% (0/2)0% (0/2)0% (0/297)0% (0/72)
KDE CI: Frameworks » attica » kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 - Build # 46 - Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/attica/job/kf5-qt5%20WindowsMSVCQt5.15/46/ Project: kf5-qt5 WindowsMSVCQt5.15 Date of build: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 08:40:01 + Build duration: 1 min 36 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 3 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.providertest
KDE CI: Frameworks » attica » kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 - Build # 59 - Unstable!
BUILD UNSTABLE Build URL https://build.kde.org/job/Frameworks/job/attica/job/kf5-qt5%20FreeBSDQt5.15/59/ Project: kf5-qt5 FreeBSDQt5.15 Date of build: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 08:40:02 + Build duration: 46 sec and counting JUnit Tests Name: projectroot Failed: 1 test(s), Passed: 2 test(s), Skipped: 0 test(s), Total: 3 test(s)Failed: projectroot.autotests.providertest
Re: Can we get tags and tarballs for the KDE Qt patch collection
Hi, Am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021, 12:51:35 CEST schrieb Neal Gompa: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 4:52 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > > El dilluns, 7 de juny de 2021, a les 20:46:25 (CEST), Nate Graham va > > escriure: > > > Hello folks, > > > > > > The Fedora packagers were mentioning to me today that it would be a lot > > > easier for them to ship Qt with our patch collection if we made tags and > > > tarballs. Is this something we could look into doing? > > > > We explicitly do not want to make releases > > https://community.kde.org/Qt5PatchCollection#Will_there_be_releases.3F > > > > Making a release means having to use of a version number, and any version > > number we use will be wrong. > > > > Don't think this as a product, think of it as a central place where patches > > are collected. > > > > If they want a tarball because using git is a problem, they can always use > > https://invent.kde.org/qt/qt/qtbase/-/archive/kde/5.15/qtbase-kde-5.15.tar.bz2 > > ? > > > > You *already* are using version numbers and bumped it to 5.15.3: > https://blog.neon.kde.org/2021/06/04/kde-neons-qt-is-now-built-from-kdes-git-branches/ No, that was done in upstream Qt's 5.15 branch when 5.15.2 got prepared. New version numbers and releases would be necessary if new features get introduced by backported patches, but FWICT that is explicitly against the goal. See https://community.kde.org/Qt5PatchCollection. Cheers, Fabian > This is unreasonable if you're going to make us need fixes from there. > I'd rather we didn't pretend this is something other than what it is: > a community maintained uplift of Qt 5.15 while Plasma works to move to > Qt 6. > > Also, that URL is unstable, you'd get different things each time you'd > fetch from it based on the HEAD of that branch. > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
Re: Can we get tags and tarballs for the KDE Qt patch collection
> 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 I would suggest simply using 5.12.2-kdemmdd for those, if it will happen. Eike
