On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Alexander Neundorf <neund...@kde.org> wrote: > Hi, > > until recently I thought I was still the maintainer of the buildsystem for > KDE4 and also KF5, but I think the consensus on this list here is that Stephen > has taken over this role. > So I'll let him do that, and stay out of the way. > > I'll still have a look at KDE4 stuff, but for KF5 (including extra-cmake- > modules) I'll let you do what you want. Put me on CC directly if you have > questions. Maybe I'll join again later, we'll see. > > As I see it, Stephen and I disagree on a lot of fundamental things, and this > makes working on KF5 anything but fun for me. Stephen went ahead and changed > them all, and more or less all of them without proposal or discussion, at > least I am not aware of those. > Also, I simply finally have enough of these discussions in my spare time. > > Here's what I'm talking of: > > - requiring versions of cmake. For me, I don't want to annoy developers, I > want to decrease their work. I don't want that cmake is seen as a tool which > all the time requires work. You know that from KDE4. We increased the required > versions only rarely, everytime with a long warning period. I would keep it > this way for KF5 too. Stephen decided to require bleeding edge cmake for KF5. > > - releasing extra-cmake-modules. > Two years ago in Randa, people told me they would like to use cmake stuff from > KDE also in non-KDE projects, including the wealth of Find-modules. So I would > have preferred to have a release of extra-cmake-modules very early, last year > if possible, including a bunch of useful macros and some Find-modules. Not > complete, but in good shape. Those people who talked to me at Randa would have > liked that, and all the developers who regularly ask on the cmake list or in > the cmake bug tracker would have liked it and maybe they even would have > contributed. > This was not possible, in my opinion mainly because Stephen added a bunch of > preliminary files to extra-cmake-modules which were very much not releasable, > API-wise, documentation-wise, and, as I said, only preliminary. We as of today > have those files in e-c-m, and they block us from making a release. > Stephen wants to release e-c-m when KF5 gets released. > > - imperative and explicit (some may say lengthy) vs. declarative and short > (some may say magic). I want the cmake code to be easy to read and understand, > i.e. explicit and maybe long, Stephen wants the cmake code to be a short as > possible. IMO while this may make it easier to write, it makes it harder to > understand and modify. > > - using target names vs. variables. You know that. We'll have ALIAS targets. > > - the cmake coding style. Not really a big issue for me, but it adds to the > rest. The only place I am aware of where our cmake coding style is documented, > is here: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/CMake_Coding_Style , so that's the > document to follow. If you want to, look at the history. At some point Stephen > blamed me I wouldn't follow the correct coding style, according to him 2 > spaces and closing the function on a separate line. I don't know how he came > to think this would be the cmake coding style.
Hi Alexander, I'm sorry to hear that! I hope you keep sticking around in KDE :) As for the issues, why don't you and Stephen just find yourself a quiet place on IRC and talk about it? _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
