On Tue, May 5, 2015, at 12:09 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > On Tuesday 05 May 2015 11:33:03 Christian Mollekopf wrote: > > What the regular releases IMO should be doing, is to take the latest > > version from the "always releasable" master branch, > > and be done with it (and that means not touching the library version, > > because that's not the responsibility of the person who > > releases, it's the responsibility of the maintainer of the library). > > > > > - the fact that the workflow for frameworks (master always stable and > > > releasable) does not require a distinction between bugfixes and features, > > > like the KDE4 workflow required. > > > > I'm not suggesting to change that, I'm asking to not take the library > > version number away from maintainers > > that need it as a vital tool for their release management. The result of > > that release management will be a new version > > in the master branch which can essentially be blindly packaged. > > Currently release management in KDE means that the release management > does the > increase of version numbers with the help of automated tools. This means > that > I as a maintainer of multiple components don't have to follow the release > cycles of all the different components. I normally don't know when > * frameworks tag > * kde-workspace tag > * applications tag >
I think it's very good that you don't have to worry about the release cycle as a maintainer, and I'd like to keep it that way. > If you move the responsibility to increase version numbers to the > maintainers, > I fear that we would have huge breakage. Just the fact that with the > one-month > release cycle of frameworks a maintainer is no longer allowed to become > ill > for more than three weeks or go on vacations for such a long time. > No, it just means that a frameworks release can contain the same version repeatedly if nothing has changed. > If such a responsibility would be moved to the maintainers I would > immediately > step down as a frameworks maintainer, because knowing myself I would more > often forget about it than not. Also it would add an additional workload > on my > shoulders, which I don't have time for. > Automated tools are quite awesome > to increase version numbers. Thank you very much to not require me to do it > manually! Which is why I'm suggesting to make this optional. I don't agree that bumping a version number is any significant additional work, but if you feel it is then it's up to you to make that decision. I'd like a way to opt-out of that practice, where I'm doing the work. Cheers, Christian _______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
