vkrause added a comment.
In T10812#184405 <https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812#184405>, @ngraham wrote: > As an intermediate step, if we put the Frameworks on the Plasma schedule, we wouldn't necessarily need to blobify them into one big framework again; they could continue to be separate, but just use the Plasma release schedule. > > From a code perspective, this would eliminate a whole class of issues we currently face where a feature or bugfix requires changes to both a Framework and Plasma. Right now these kinds of changes must be carefully planned and often require ifdefs or delaying the commit. It also makes life difficult for LTS distros because they don't get bugfixes to the Frameworks version they shipped with unless they have someone who basically browses the code full-time and cherry-picks fixes. Whereas with Plasma, they can just grab the source tarball of the bugfix releases and ship updates. If Frameworks moved to the Plasma release schedule, those distros could do that with Frameworks too, making it easier to ensure a higher level of quality for their users. That might be true for Plasma, but it would worsen the situation considerably for anyone else IMHO. While it now takes ~4w until a KF5 fix is released, or a new feature becomes available for application developers, this would then take 3-4x longer. So we'd probably end up syncing the Application release cycle as well to mitigate this, and following that we'd probably also end up depending on unreleased Frameworks in both Plasma and Application master branches (something not particular popular with Application developers at least). We've been there before, in KDE3 times. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/T10812 To: ngraham, vkrause Cc: apol, jriddell, xyquadrat, jtamate, vkrause, lbeltrame, ltoscano, cfeck, aacid, #yakuake, #okular, #dolphin, #kate, #spectacle, #konsole, #gwenview, #kde_pim, #kde_games, #kde_applications, ngraham
