[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-release-team
Subject:    Re: Can we get tags and tarballs for the KDE Qt patch collection
From:       Ömer Fadıl USTA <omerusta () gmail ! com>
Date:       2021-06-08 22:35:35
Message-ID: CAATbBR0CmQamVbkrf6rGr9ennaRDmY-uJJVMLh+pgb5h3d2taw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Please don't get me wrong but naming these patches under name of KDE will
make people confuse.
That will lead people to think that it is just KDE-related. So my
suggestion is naming is something like
qt-15.3-communityN that will let everyone take these patches whether if
they are using KDE or not.

=C3=96mer Fad=C4=B1l Usta
PGP key : 0xfd11561976b1690b
about.me/omerusta


Johannes Zarl-Zierl <johannes@zarl-zierl.at>, 9 Haz 2021 =C3=87ar, 01:17
tarihinde =C5=9Funu yazd=C4=B1:

> Am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021, 16:56:56 CEST schrieb David Faure:
> > On mardi 8 juin 2021 15:04:20 CEST Nate Graham wrote:
> > > That being the case, what is the problem with us tagging it as 5.15.3=
?
> > > We would not be using our own version number but rather the one set b=
y
> > > upstream. If the issue is one of not wanting to mislead people into
> > > thinking that this is some kind of officially sanctioned thing, could
> it
> > > be something like "5.15.3-kde-patches"?
> >
> > It's not just about official or not. One day the Qt Company *will*
> release
> > 5.15.3 (as per the KDE/FreeQt agreement), no?
> > So we cannot release something called 5.15.3 which is in fact different
> > (older) from what will one day be 5.15.3.
> >
> > I'm unsure whether we should stick to "those are patches, grab them"
> > or, for convenience, giving it a version number that is more than 5.15.=
2,
> > less than 5.15.3, says it comes from kde, and allows multiple
> releases....
>
> Setting apart the technicalities of 5.15.3 vs 5.15.2.x vs 5.15.3.kde.N, I
> think the best place to come up with a solution is the KDE side, not
> downstream distributions:
>
> If we tell people "this is just a bunch of patches, but you should really
> apply them" we create a much bigger problem that nobody can tell for sure
> anymore whether that particular distro version of Qt does contain the
> patches
> or not. If not for the packagers we should provide somewhat canonical
> versions
> for ourselves and save ourselves some headaches over bug triaging...
>
> Cheers,
>   Johannes
>
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div>Please don&#39;t get me wrong but naming these patches under name \
of KDE will make people confuse.</div><div>That will lead people to think that it is \
just KDE-related. So my suggestion is naming is something \
like</div><div>qt-15.3-communityN that will let everyone take these patches whether \
if they are using KDE or not.<br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><br>Ömer Fadıl Usta<br>PGP \
key : 0xfd11561976b1690b<br><a href="http://about.me/omerusta" \
target="_blank">about.me/omerusta</a><br></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Johannes Zarl-Zierl &lt;<a \
href="mailto:johannes@zarl-zierl.at">johannes@zarl-zierl.at</a>&gt;, 9 Haz 2021 Çar, \
01:17 tarihinde şunu yazdı:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Am Dienstag, 8. Juni 2021, 16:56:56 CEST schrieb \
David Faure:<br> &gt; On mardi 8 juin 2021 15:04:20 CEST Nate Graham wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; That being the case, what is the problem with us tagging it as 5.15.3?<br>
&gt; &gt; We would not be using our own version number but rather the one set by<br>
&gt; &gt; upstream. If the issue is one of not wanting to mislead people into<br>
&gt; &gt; thinking that this is some kind of officially sanctioned thing, could \
it<br> &gt; &gt; be something like &quot;5.15.3-kde-patches&quot;?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; It&#39;s not just about official or not. One day the Qt Company *will* \
release<br> &gt; 5.15.3 (as per the KDE/FreeQt agreement), no?<br>
&gt; So we cannot release something called 5.15.3 which is in fact different<br>
&gt; (older) from what will one day be 5.15.3.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; I&#39;m unsure whether we should stick to &quot;those are patches, grab \
them&quot;<br> &gt; or, for convenience, giving it a version number that is more than \
5.15.2,<br> &gt; less than 5.15.3, says it comes from kde, and allows multiple \
releases....<br> <br>
Setting apart the technicalities of 5.15.3 vs 5.15.2.x vs 5.15.3.kde.N, I <br>
think the best place to come up with a solution is the KDE side, not <br>
downstream distributions:<br>
<br>
If we tell people &quot;this is just a bunch of patches, but you should really <br>
apply them&quot; we create a much bigger problem that nobody can tell for sure <br>
anymore whether that particular distro version of Qt does contain the patches <br>
or not. If not for the packagers we should provide somewhat canonical versions <br>
for ourselves and save ourselves some headaches over bug triaging...<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
   Johannes<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]