From kde-devel  Wed Apr 10 12:54:26 2024
From: "Friedrich W. H. Kossebau" <kossebau () kde ! org>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:54:26 +0000
To: kde-devel
Subject: Re: KDE Gear projects with failing CI (master) (9 April 2024)
Message-Id: <2212930.h6RI2rZIcs () klux>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=171275352922296

Am Mittwoch, 10. April 2024, 14:29:37 CEST schrieb Ingo Kl=C3=B6cker:
> On Mittwoch, 10. April 2024 13:33:46 CEST Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 10. April 2024, 13:04:47 CEST schrieb Ingo Kl=C3=B6cker:
> > > On Mittwoch, 10. April 2024 09:21:34 CEST Ben Cooksley wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:51=E2=80=AFAM Ingo Kl=C3=B6cker <kloecker=
@kde.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Dienstag, 9. April 2024 23:26:32 CEST Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > > > > ktrip - NEW
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > >  * https://invent.kde.org/utilities/ktrip/-/pipelines/657661
> > > > > > =20
> > > > > >   * craft_android builds fail
> > > > >=20
> > > > > *sigh* Why does kirigami master depend on the not yet released ECM
> > > > > 6.1.0?
> > > >=20
> > > > Likely as Kirigami itself is a Framework - that being said, it seem=
s a
> > > > bit
> > > > weird for the version bumps to be pushed to Frameworks before the
> > > > release
> > > > has been made public (because Craft cannot use them until they're
> > > > public...)
> > >=20
> > > I learned that this is the usual procedure for Frameworks. But it
> > > highlights why it's a bad idea for applications to depend on the mast=
er
> > > versions of Frameworks.
> >=20
> > In (software) development it seems usually fine to have development
> > branches of separate components depend on each other's latest state. Th=
ey
> > call it Continuous Integration. One of the purposes is to get
> > early-as-possible feedback, not only post-release when certain things c=
an
> > no longer be changed. In the case of KF libraries that would be e.g.
> > feasibility of new API as well as the state of the implementation. Which
> > is usually considered a good idea, both for the libraries as well as the
> > applications as the consumers of the libraries.
> >=20
> > It is a bad idea only from the POV of Craft users, as the tool seems not
> > yet capable to deal with development branches of all dependencies?
>=20
> It does support this but it will kill our CI/CD system if every Craft CD =
job
> builds all Frameworks from scratch. In any case, what you talk about is
> covered by the CI (Continuous Integration!) jobs.
>=20
> The Craft CD (Continuous Delivery/Deployment) jobs are meant to be used f=
or
> building releases. When we stop doing fixed point releases and start doing
> continuous releases of Frameworks then we can talk about doing CD from
> master.

Hm, not sure if we talk along the same lines. Let's summarize what I saw he=
re:

1. craft-tool based job on master branch of app fails
2. reason: master branch of app expects master branch of library, job thoug=
h=20
only supplies released version of that library
3. claim: "highlights why it's a bad idea for applications to depend on the=
=20
master versions of Frameworks"
4. "Craft CD jobs are meant to be used for building releases"

So why are there Craft CD jobs on master branches of apps? Or what kind of=
=20
Craft jobs are those?=20

My point is: it is not a bad idea for applications to depend on master=20
versions of Frameworks, for the reasons given in my response.

So what is the context of that claim stating the opposite?

Cheers
=46riedrich