Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
On 04/04/15 19:44, David Faure wrote: On Saturday 28 March 2015 05:49:01 Michael Palimaka wrote: On 28/03/15 03:48, Alex Merry wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the major component. This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to download the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script which downloads the tarball to build it. That is bad and it is not necessary. Let's sync the major number for the next release. At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it can use the 4th version number component. I have no particular objection, although I think doubling the complexity of scripts is overstating things a little. Alex Is ECM actually part of KF5, or just happens to be released alongside it? (I thought the latter, hence the different version). The initial idea was it' happens to be released alongside, when necessary. I.e. as a marketing message: you can use ECM without using KF5. But, well, this modularity exists for the rest of KF5 too (you can use KArchive without using KIO), so this would still be clear if the version number was aligned. I also saw it as a way to not include it if it didn't change, but in practice there's always at least one change every month, usually more ;) FWIW the different version doesn't bother me at all as a downstream. And it doesn't bother me as the release dude - I have one if() in the version file ;) (so, I also disagree with doubles the complexity). But since both Stephen Kelly and Alex Merry (maintainers of ECM) are in favour of switching, I'll make the switch. Will ECM move from kdesupport to frameworks too? ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
On Monday 06 April 2015 02:57:11 Michael Palimaka wrote: On 04/04/15 19:44, David Faure wrote: But since both Stephen Kelly and Alex Merry (maintainers of ECM) are in favour of switching, I'll make the switch. Well, there's a bit of a difference between no objections and support, but no matter. Will ECM move from kdesupport to frameworks too? No, it's not a framework; kdesupport is the right logical place for it. As for how closely tied to the frameworks it is, I'm not sure. Currently, we release in sync - it occurs to me now (possibly too late) that at some point it may make sense to bump the major version of e-c-m, even if we don't bump the major version of KF5 (eg: bumping the required CMake version and dropping some compatibility modules or function interfaces that are long-disused). The extent to which the frameworks SC guarantee extends to e-c-m is vague, at least (after all, it doesn't necessarily extend to other frameworks dependencies, and e-c-m isn't stricly required to *use* frameworks, only to build them, and it's not tied to Qt versions in the way frameworks are). Alex ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
On Saturday 28 March 2015 05:49:01 Michael Palimaka wrote: On 28/03/15 03:48, Alex Merry wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the major component. This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to download the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script which downloads the tarball to build it. That is bad and it is not necessary. Let's sync the major number for the next release. At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it can use the 4th version number component. I have no particular objection, although I think doubling the complexity of scripts is overstating things a little. Alex Is ECM actually part of KF5, or just happens to be released alongside it? (I thought the latter, hence the different version). The initial idea was it' happens to be released alongside, when necessary. I.e. as a marketing message: you can use ECM without using KF5. But, well, this modularity exists for the rest of KF5 too (you can use KArchive without using KIO), so this would still be clear if the version number was aligned. I also saw it as a way to not include it if it didn't change, but in practice there's always at least one change every month, usually more ;) FWIW the different version doesn't bother me at all as a downstream. And it doesn't bother me as the release dude - I have one if() in the version file ;) (so, I also disagree with doubles the complexity). But since both Stephen Kelly and Alex Merry (maintainers of ECM) are in favour of switching, I'll make the switch. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5 ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
I have no particular objection, So, what needs to be done to get this synced up? Bump the version in the CMakeLists.txt and update some release-tarball-creating script? David I guess the latter is for you? Thanks, Steve. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Michael Palimaka kensing...@gentoo.org wrote: On 28/03/15 03:48, Alex Merry wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the major component. This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to download the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script which downloads the tarball to build it. That is bad and it is not necessary. Let's sync the major number for the next release. At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it can use the 4th version number component. I have no particular objection, although I think doubling the complexity of scripts is overstating things a little. Alex Is ECM actually part of KF5, or just happens to be released alongside it? (I thought the latter, hence the different version). FWIW the different version doesn't bother me at all as a downstream. ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the major component. This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to download the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script which downloads the tarball to build it. That is bad and it is not necessary. Let's sync the major number for the next release. At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it can use the 4th version number component. I have no particular objection, although I think doubling the complexity of scripts is overstating things a little. Alex ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
Re: Syncing ECM release number with KF5
On 28/03/15 03:48, Alex Merry wrote: On Wednesday 25 March 2015 22:35:24 Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, ECM release numbers are in sync with KF5 release numbers, except for the major component. This means that if you want to build the 5.x.y release you have to download the 1.x.y release of ECM. That doubles the complexity of your script which downloads the tarball to build it. That is bad and it is not necessary. Let's sync the major number for the next release. At some point the reason to make them out of sync was to be able to make ECM releases more frequently. That is very rare because KF5 releases are happening every month. If ECM needs to make an out of band release, it can use the 4th version number component. I have no particular objection, although I think doubling the complexity of scripts is overstating things a little. Alex Is ECM actually part of KF5, or just happens to be released alongside it? (I thought the latter, hence the different version). FWIW the different version doesn't bother me at all as a downstream. ___ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
