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

List:       kde-frameworks-devel
Subject:    Re: CMake config & target challenges on moving to KF5 namespace; dir structure & API dox (Re: Submit
From:       "Friedrich W. H. Kossebau" <kossebau () kde ! org>
Date:       2019-12-28 23:30:42
Message-ID: 2009095.A4HQMggVIW () klux
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Stephen,

Am Sonntag, 29. Dezember 2019, 00:10:50 CET schrieb Stephen Kelly:
> On 22/12/2019 16:08, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > On 21/12/2019 23:55, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> >> Perhaps joining the "Release Service" (formerly known as "KDE
> >> Applications")
> >> is a better place then, it also contains a set of libraries already.
> >> That would serve the purpose of having releases happening regularly.
> > 
> > The goals of making Grantlee a Framework are:
> > 
> > * Make more frequent releases which don't depend on me
> > 
> > * Make it more easy for others to contribute to development
> > 
> > 
> > I think at the point that renaming happens, the name Grantlee will
> > disappear, and we'll have two libraries (KF5::TextDocument and
> > KF5::TextTemplates or so in CMake and probably removing the C++
> > namespace).
> > 
> > I think all of that should be done together and I don't think that
> > should be done until compatibility is broken to become Qt6-based (KF6).
> 
> My conclusion from reading this thread is that this is the way forward:
> 
> * Grantlee does not become a KF5 framework. I'll continue to make
> releases from github if needed based on Qt 5. We can consider
> re-evaluating that in the future.

Not becoming a KF5 module should not stop you/us making Grantlee a project now 
developed in the KDE community. Given your two goals cited above, making 
Grantlee hosted on KDE resources and releasing it as part of the "release 
service" should satisfy your goals already now.

And it would allow to make Grantlee already now move as close enough as 
possible to KF standards, besides the naming ones. So that at KF6 time only 
those things are left to do both on producer & consumer side which are about 
ABI breakage.

Why are you proposing to do a step back instead to the old state, which 
everyone including you considered not that satisfying?

I hope my personal objections raised about it becoming an official KF module 
already now have not arrived with you as objection in general. On the 
opposite, I agree with the ideas behind this move. I have just strict feeling 
about KF as a product itself when it comes to consumer as well as cross-module 
ontributor experience.
So please be aware that I would be sad if you decided to have Grantlee go back 
to lonely cowboy mode :)

Cheers
Friedrich


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