New KDE Frameworks Versions as SRU

[Scott Kitterman]

On Thursday, November 20, 2014 03:39:47 PM Harald Sitter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> 
wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 03:19:10 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> >> I'd like to propose to the tech board to give an update allowance for new
> >> versions of KDE Frameworks.  I don't expect this to be the quickest of
> >> discussions so we may as well get started :)
> >> 
> >> Currently we have a micro release update exception for KDE SC bugfix
> >> releases.
> >> 
> >> KDE Frameworks has no bugfix releases because upstream decided they
> >> didn't
> >> have the resources to make them.  Instead they have new releases every
> >> month with both bugfixes and new features.  However these are libraries
> >> so
> >> applications will be using the existing ABI and that ABI (the symbols) is
> >> not allowed to change.  The functionality of those symbols is also not
> >> allowed to change.  Any new features are in new symbols and existing
> >> applications won't use them.  So updates in the archive will be bugfix
> >> only
> >> for applications in the archive.
> > 
> > They already failed at this once, so I don't feel confident in this
> > assertion.
> So did kdelibs4.
> 
> >> Allowing a SRU version exception will allow these bugfixes.  It will also
> >> make it easier for backports of Plasma to use the version of KF5 in the
> >> archive.  It will also make Kubuntu a nicer platform for people
> >> developing
> >> with Qt and KF5 because they'll be able to easily get the latest version.
> >> 
> >> KF5 is in Utopic but nothing in the archive uses it so it might be a nice
> >> way to start and reassure everyone it'll be a smooth process.
> >> 
> >> I'd like to send this to the tech board, any thoughts?
> > 
> > I'm against it.
> 
> Against asking? Oo

Yes.  I don't think it's appropriate to get a blanket exception given the 
upstream maintenance (or lack there of) philosophy.  So I don't think we 
should ask if we can do something I don't think we should do.

> > We got the exception for KDE4 because upstream had an updates policy
> > (which
> > you wrote/socialized upstream) that was consistent with our SRU
> > requirements. This is not true for KF5.  I don't think that the fact that
> > there was an exception for KDE4 is relevant.
> 
> Except that frameworks derive from the same code base, are made by the
> same people and powers the continuations of previously seen kdelibs4
> applications.
> 
> > The upstream maintenance policy is clearly at odds with our SRU policy, so
> > an exception is inappropriate.  Consider that it's called a micro-release
> > exception and upstream has decided they aren't doing micro-releases at
> > all.
> > 
> > Since we will freeze our versions for development with a compatible KF5
> > and
> > Plasma 5, there's no need for newer feature versions in the archive.  We
> > have approximately a bazillion PPAs for people that want newer crack.  We
> > shouldn't inflict it on the entire user base.
> 
> There is a need for bugfixes, which unfortunately may or may not
> contain features. That being said, with frameworks being mostly
> libraries a 'feature' is a new function, which quite simply can not
> break existing functions by being there. C++ doesn't work like this.

I completely agree bug fixes are needed.  I think it's very unfortunate that 
upstream decided to abandon their traditional post-release support.  The 
proper fix for that, however, is not to dump the crack of the day onto all our 
users.

Scott K