Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Martin Gräßlin
Am 14. Januar 2017 00:58:55 MEZ schrieb Kevin Kofler : >Nicolás Alvarez wrote: >> It is not true that users will be no worse off. An application could >> increase the dependency of libfoo to 1.3 and add code using a feature >that >> was broken in 1.2. If you then revert

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Kevin Kofler
Alexander Neundorf wrote: > As far as is know there is no such list of "supported releases of common > distributions". > If the rule is that it is Ok to require new versions of libs, because > future distro releases will have it, this list would basically be empty. With "supported releases", I

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Kevin Kofler
Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > It is not true that users will be no worse off. An application could > increase the dependency of libfoo to 1.3 and add code using a feature that > was broken in 1.2. If you then revert the version bump, you get code that > uses the new feature but allows libfoo 1.2, where

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Marco Martin
On Friday 13 January 2017 17:23:20 Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > Please chime in with suggestions for how the text needs to be refined > > and expanded to meet your and our needs. Updated versions of specific > > paragraphs are the preferred format for doing so: The thread so far > > has shown that

As Google Code-in ends, time to plan for Google Summer of Code

2017-01-13 Thread Valorie Zimmerman
I've just finished preparing the new Ideas page for 2017: https://community.kde.org/GSoC/2017/Ideas It is basically the same as every other year, and has no previous ideas on it. If you or your project plan to present a former idea again, click on the 2016 Ideas link, and copy/paste it into the

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On 2017 M01 12, Thu 04:00:34 CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > Email threads don't work to codify such requirements. What we need is > > something like an "announce new dependency to sysadmin freeze" prior to > > the dependency freeze in the release schedule. That's what I mean

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Luca Beltrame
Il giorno Sat, 14 Jan 2017 02:36:50 +0900 Eike Hein ha scritto: > How to subscribe sysadmin: Indeed something we still need to figure > out. In Phab, there's the Sysadmin group that can be used. -- Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team GPG key ID: A29D259B pgpLjBm3AgG7C.pgp

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Eike Hein
On January 14, 2017 1:23:20 AM GMT+09:00, "Martin Gräßlin" wrote: >Am 2017-01-13 13:21, schrieb Eike Hein: >> Ok, here we go. My draft of a formal policy for dep changes and the >CI: >> >> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Dependency_Changes_and_CI >> >> Compared to my

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Martin Gräßlin
Am 2017-01-13 13:21, schrieb Eike Hein: Ok, here we go. My draft of a formal policy for dep changes and the CI: https://community.kde.org/Policies/Dependency_Changes_and_CI Compared to my earlier email, this draft contains some hard deadlines and an attempt to specify failure modes if the

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
> El 12 ene 2017, a las 14:54, Kevin Kofler escribió: > > Jan Kundrát wrote: >> do you have some examples of distribution maintainers actually doing such >> a stupid thing? > > I've done it more than once. If the dependency that the latest upstream > version wants is

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Marco Martin
On Friday 13 January 2017 21:21:16 Eike Hein wrote: > Ok, here we go. My draft of a formal policy for dep changes and the CI: > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Dependency_Changes_and_CI > very happy to see this! in general i agree with Adriaan about swapping a) and c) -- Marco Martin

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Adriaan de Groot
On Friday, January 13, 2017 09:35:51 PM Eike Hein wrote: > Quick follow-up notes: I improved the formatting a little more, > please refresh if you were reading already - now waiting for > comments, though. I like it in general, although near the end I think I would prefer to have (c) maintainer

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Eike Hein
Quick follow-up notes: I improved the formatting a little more, please refresh if you were reading already - now waiting for comments, though. Cheers, Eike

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Eike Hein
Ok, here we go. My draft of a formal policy for dep changes and the CI: https://community.kde.org/Policies/Dependency_Changes_and_CI Compared to my earlier email, this draft contains some hard deadlines and an attempt to specify failure modes if the deadlines are not met. Please chime in with

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Eike Hein
> Sure, every time I need a new dep I'm going to do a bikeshed discussion like > this one. That was the last time I'm going through this. I can do better > things with my time. No, thank you. After the experience in this thread I can > only advise everybody to never ever tell the larger KDE

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

2017-01-13 Thread Martin Gräßlin
Am 13. Januar 2017 07:42:21 MEZ schrieb Ben Cooksley : >On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Martin Gräßlin >wrote: >> Am 2017-01-13 03:10, schrieb Michael Pyne: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 05:02:40PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: Am 2017-01-12