Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Hi all, Can we please keep this thread on-topic. For the record, going off topic means: a) Mentioning anything about distro patching b) Mentioning anything about ifdefs. All the above is serving to do is inflame things, and divert from the current topic of this thread which is to sort out the

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Am 2017-01-15 22:58, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: Hi Martin, just replying somewhere... On 2017 M01 15, Sun 14:52:30 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote: I think that is a reasonable suggestion. If distros patch our dependencies we need to consider this as a fork. And a fork should be called a fork. It

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Hi Martin, just replying somewhere... On 2017 M01 15, Sun 14:52:30 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I think that is a reasonable suggestion. If distros patch our > dependencies we need to consider this as a fork. And a fork should be > called a fork. It needs to be clear that KDE is not responsible

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Am 2017-01-15 18:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler: Martin Gräßlin wrote: I think that is a reasonable suggestion. If distros patch our dependencies we need to consider this as a fork. And a fork should be called a fork. It needs to be clear that KDE is not responsible for any issues caused by the fork

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I think that is a reasonable suggestion. If distros patch our > dependencies we need to consider this as a fork. And a fork should be > called a fork. It needs to be clear that KDE is not responsible for any > issues caused by the fork and thus the complete product must be

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I'm sorry, but we need exceptions. Shit happens, sometimes not > everything is working as flawless as we want. If the quality of our > product is in danger, it doesn't matter anymore what policies are. The > patches to fix it will be pushed. No matter whether the process

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Am 2017-01-14 21:14, schrieb Ben Cooksley: On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, 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:

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Am 2017-01-14 11:42, schrieb Kai-Uwe: Am 14.01.2017 um 08:29 schrieb Martin Gräßlin: Am 14. Januar 2017 00:58:55 MEZ schrieb Kevin Kofler : The common case is that the new library version is used for an API addition, and that reverting the dependency bump in the