Re: KDE Builder: request for review

[christoph]

On 2024-07-13 15:52, christ...@cullmann.io wrote:

On 2024-07-12 23:01, Thiago Masato Costa Sueto wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to ask about the status of the KDE Review for kde-builder.

The existing issue tracking this has been without activity for a
while: https://invent.kde.org/sdk/kde-builder/-/issues/84

So far ashark seems to have fulfilled what was asked of them, and I
believe they're just waiting for some confirmation on whether the
project has passed KDE Review or not, and if not what else is needed
to do so. The only possible issue I can see is
https://invent.kde.org/sdk/kdesrc-build/-/merge_requests/376, which is
moreso about kdesrc-build.

Ashark has been pretty willing to address any remaining issues
(technical or community related) so far, and they've been very active
on Matrix helping new users.

From my part, I need the project to get an ack first before I can make
tutorials for it.


Hi,

I think before we promote this more as 'the tool to use' it would be 
nice to
get some proper review flow going to avoid we run again into 
incompatible changes.


These got me now several times and if we promote this to be used and 
write howtos the
goal must be in my eyes no further backward incompatible changes or 
large dependency

increases without a real good reason.

But that is just my viewpoint.


Hi,

any feedback on that?
Thanks.

Greetings
Christoph



Greetings
Christoph



Thiago

Re: KDE Builder: request for review

[christoph]

Hi,

On 2024-07-15 20:13, Andrew Shark wrote:

You mean new python dependencies? I never added them. Oppositely, I
reduce them. For example, I gladly got rid of the "promise"
dependency.


yes, with dependencies I meant Python libs and the Python version.

There was some rather lengthy discussions before we arrived at the
current OK situation.



Regarding reviews, I am not against them. I just continue directly
committing changes that do not influence on the behavior, such as for
example, changes to follow pep8 rules and refactorings.


There were incompatible changes in the last months and I would really
like to have a proper review process for larger changes in general.

And I think it must be clear that the top priority must be to stay
compatible. If I write a howto now, I want that it still works in 2 
years.


That doesn't mean there shall be no new features, just not breaking 
changes.


Like we do it with Frameworks and Co. or how CMake handles that.

The build tool shall not require the user to fixup the config without
really good reasons.

Greetings
Christoph

(please keep the list in CC)




Hi,

I think before we promote this more as 'the tool to use' it would
be
nice to
get some proper review flow going to avoid we run again into
incompatible changes.

These got me now several times and if we promote this to be used
and
write howtos the
goal must be in my eyes no further backward incompatible changes
or
large dependency
increases without a real good reason.

But that is just my viewpoint.


Hi,

any feedback on that?
Thanks.