On Friday 25 October 2013 11:22:26 Stephen Kelly wrote: > Kevin Ottens wrote: > >> Stephen Kelly wrote: > >>It's not my decision either. It's just a recommendation. > >> > >> Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > >>I object. > >>What's the big impediment of releasing ECM? If there's an impediment, > >>let's fix it. > >> > > I agree with Aleix here. I think it's important that the first frameworks > > we'll release are as close as possible to the final situation, ECM should > > be releasable by then. If something blocks that, we should try to solve > > it. > > ReviewBoard is not suited for non-patch discussion. > > One problem is that we have a CMakePackageConfigHelpers.cmake fork in ECM. > That fork is no longer needed as of cmake master. > > Things like > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.buildsystem/7994/focus=6969 > > could also be solved by teaching CMake something more about tests (not done > yet, but I see no reason why worthwhile improvements there would not be > accepted). > > That could obsolete ecm_mark_as_test etc.
Sure, I don't see how that's different from classes or methods we have in our libraries at the moment which will get obsoleted by some later Qt version. With that line of thinking we'd never release. Just mark modules which gets obsoleted as deprecated... Or I'm missing something? Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net Sponsored by KDAB to work on KDE Frameworks KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
