El dilluns, 19 de març de 2018, a les 20:26:36 CET, Volker Krause va escriure: > On Monday, 19 March 2018 18:15:49 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 06:04:51PM +0100, Volker Krause wrote: > > > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Application_Lifecycle > > > > > (1) We do not do "direct-to-frameworks" releases, ie. new modules should > > > be battle-tested elsewhere before moving to KF5. > > > > I don't know of that but once in frameworks there's strict ABI > > requirements > > so it's usually best to test elsewhere. Self released extragear is easy > > enough. > > Can Application modules depend on libraries from Extragear releases though?
Sure, why not? > > > > (2) We do not do releases from playground, and following that, no > > > released > > > module can depend on playground modules. > > > > You can make alpha releases from playground, but not beta and final > > > > > (3) Module moves have to be avoided where possible, ie. they should only > > > be done to fix stuff, not as a planned evolution of a module. > > > > No reason why that should be. Moving from Applications to elsewhere I'd > > avoid just because of the version number lowering which annoys packagers. > > Right, which excludes the Application -> Frameworks move which is > particularly interesting for a number of framework candidates in KDE PIM. I wouldn't say "excludes" it, but yes the versioning change will be weird. Maybe if possible and doesn't feel forced, there can be a name change/ improvement that may help? Cheers, Albert > > Thanks, > Volker P.S: We really need to find a new name for extragear at some point :D
