Hi,

Volker Krause <vkrause@kde.org> schrieb am Fr., 27. Dez. 2019, 11:04:

On Thursday, 26 December 2019 19:25:09 CET Alb= ert Astals Cid wrote:
> El dimarts, 24 de desembre de 2019, a les 13:05:23 CET, Friedrich W. H= .
Kossebau va escriure:
> > Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2019, 09:57:57 CET schrieb Volker Krause:=
> > > On Sunday, 22 December 2019 09:46:02 CET Dominik Haumann wro= te:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > in any case, maybe the discussed points should go to th= e KF6
> > > > workboard?
> > > > https://phabricator.kde.= org/project/view/310/
> > > >
> > > > I indeed believe that consistency in the KF5 world is a= n important
> > > > feature,
> > > > so Friedrich does have a point here. Other framework ad= ditions had to
> > > > adapt
> > > > as well (what comes to my mind is renaming of KQuickCha= rts or
> > > > KCalendarCore).
> > >
> > > There is one important difference between KCalendarCore/KQui= ckCharts/etc
> > > and Grantlee/QKeychain/etc though. The former had no previou= s release
> > > promising a public API and therefore only KDE-internal users= . The
> > > latter have such releases and guarantees, and a significant<= br> > > > KDE-external user base. That's what makes me consider a = transitional
> > > pragmatic exemption from certain conventions, if we assume i= t would
> > > help to grow our external user base, and thus the pool of po= tential
> > > contributors.
> >
> > Having to make exemptions shows a principal design flaw though: i= f the
> > idea is to pull in more libraries into KF, incl. some with previo= us
> > releases & thus existing userbase hoping on longer-term stabl= e ABI, the
> > same will also happen in the KF6 series. And even for the current= ly
> > discussed two libs Grantlee & QKeychain it means at least 1 1= /2 years &
> > longer (assuming KF 6.0.0 is coming then, and see how long kdelib= s4
> > survived) for being just "exemptions". It's rather = that the "exemptions"
> > become part of the rules that way.
> Which kind of exceptions are we speaking about?
>
> ABI stability? or?

The opposite actually :) It's about keeping existing API/ABI of framewo= rks
with a significant (KDE external) user base when joining KF5, until the nex= t
major release, even if that means making compromises regarding e.g. our nam= ing
conventions.

If you are confident that the usually necessary steps to become= an "aligned" framework are going to be done in the kf6 transitio= n, then I believe this is ok.

That's why I mentioned that these steps should be added to the kf= 6 workboard.

Let's s= ay Grantlee will not make these steps, then it's as simple as moving it= out of the kf6 circle again.

As I understand, you see a nice opportunity to make the KDE Framework= s more recognized. I'd say, go for it.

Best regards

Dominik

--000000000000ec4f48059aafbd3a--