Re: Stable branches, including frameworks for Kubuntu LTS
Ben Cooksley <[email protected]> Wed, 13 May 2026 20:12:02 +1200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.devel.core,gmane.comp.kde.devel.frameworks |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CA+XidOHJ8rO-DFF1CY27DOiXiGN79WD6aC9Pdj+WxsaEOajEkQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--0000000000006681d60651ae89ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 13 May 2026, 3:45=E2=80=AFpm Neal Gompa, <[email protected]> wrote= : > On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4:53=E2=80=AFPM Nicolas Fella <nicolas.fella@gmx.= de> > wrote: > > > > On 5/12/26 10:45 PM, 2Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > > El dimarts, 12 de maig del 2026, a les 20:13:01 (Hora d=E2=80=99estiu= d=E2=80=99Europa > > > central), Marco Martin va escriure: > > >> On Tue, May 12, 2026, 18:15 Marco Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> We (as in Techpaladin) pledge to take up the maintenance of such > branch as > > >>> long as it's supported, managing backports, testing and releases, a= s > well > > >>> as keeping the new CI nodes green > > >> What do you think about it? Is something that looks sensible on the > > >> upstream/community point of view? > > > Apologies if the next question sounds a bit blunt I didn't figure out > how word > > > it in a somewhat better way. > > > > > > Is this something we want to pretend the community is doing? > > > > > > That is, do we want to try to make this "a KDE thing" or is it clearl= y > > > structured as a Techpaladin/Kubuntu Focus thing? > > > > > > For me the second option makes it "simpler". > > > > > > Then my suggestion would be to just create "vendor" branches like the > ones > > > that we have for example in kleopatra/mimetreeparser/friends > > > > > > gpg4win/23.10 > > > gpg4win/24.05 > > > gpg4win/gpd-5.0 > > > gpg4win/gpd-5.1 > > > > > > So create something like kubuntufocus/26.04 > > > > > > Maybe it would even make sense to create such branches for KDE Plasma > 6.6 > > > (after final 6.6.6 is released) and KDE Gear 25.12? > > > > I assume this would be shipped in *upstream* Kubuntu 26.04, not some > > derived version of that? > > > > If that's indeed the case then I'm okay with a more neutral name like > > Frameworks/6.24. Doesn't matter that much who is doing it. > > > > I am skeptical of the viability of this. Back in the days when we had > them, Kubuntu didn't ship the point releases anyway because the > updates policy for Kubuntu didn't make it easy for them to do it. And > I have seen no indication from *Kubuntu* that this would change > anytime soon. > > Otherwise, I would rather *not* see these branches at all, not as > vendor branches either. It's just a bad idea all around because it > creates confusion for everyone. Even the gpg4win ones create problems. > Can you explain please how vendor specific branches (like the enterprise/* ones many years ago, or the gpg4win/* branches today) create issues? I would not expect people to look at branches with vendor specific naming unless they had a reason to do so. > And as mentioned earlier, this would be a mess if we start having two > separate client requests for long-term KDE stack maintenance because > they're stopping on different points. > By separate clients, you mean different distros I assume? Note that a rather key difference here is that a commercial vendor, not the community, is the one maintaining this. > > > -- > =E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4= =EF=BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth! > Cheers, Ben > --0000000000006681d60651ae89ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><di= v dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 13 May 2026, 3:45=E2=80=AFpm Nea= l Gompa, <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&g= t; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 4= :53=E2=80=AFPM Nicolas Fella <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ta= rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > On 5/12/26 10:45 PM, 2Albert Astals Cid wrote:<br> > > El dimarts, 12 de maig del 2026, a les 20:13:01 (Hora d=E2=80=99e= stiu d=E2=80=99Europa<br> > > central), Marco Martin va escriure:<br> > >> On Tue, May 12, 2026, 18:15 Marco Martin <<a href=3D"mailt= o:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]= </a>> wrote:<br> > >>> We (as in Techpaladin) pledge to take up the maintenance = of such branch as<br> > >>> long as it's supported, managing backports, testing a= nd releases, as well<br> > >>> as keeping the new CI nodes green<br> > >> What do you think about it? Is something that looks sensible = on the<br> > >> upstream/community point of view?<br> > > Apologies if the next question sounds a bit blunt I didn't fi= gure out how word<br> > > it in a somewhat better way.<br> > ><br> > > Is this something we want to pretend the community is doing?<br> > ><br> > > That is, do we want to try to make this "a KDE thing" o= r is it clearly<br> > > structured as a Techpaladin/Kubuntu Focus thing?<br> > ><br> > > For me the second option makes it "simpler".<br> > ><br> > > Then my suggestion would be to just create "vendor" bra= nches like the ones<br> > > that we have for example in kleopatra/mimetreeparser/friends<br> > ><br> > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 gpg4win/23.10<br> > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 gpg4win/24.05<br> > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 gpg4win/gpd-5.0<br> > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 gpg4win/gpd-5.1<br> > ><br> > > So create something like kubuntufocus/26.04<br> > ><br> > > Maybe it would even make sense to create such branches for KDE Pl= asma 6.6<br> > > (after final 6.6.6 is released) and KDE Gear 25.12?<br> ><br> > I assume this would be shipped in *upstream* Kubuntu 26.04, not some<b= r> > derived version of that?<br> ><br> > If that's indeed the case then I'm okay with a more neutral na= me like<br> > Frameworks/6.24. Doesn't matter that much who is doing it.<br> ><br> <br> I am skeptical of the viability of this. Back in the days when we had<br> them, Kubuntu didn't ship the point releases anyway because the<br> updates policy for Kubuntu didn't make it easy for them to do it. And<b= r> I have seen no indication from *Kubuntu* that this would change<br> anytime soon.<br> <br> Otherwise, I would rather *not* see these branches at all, not as<br> vendor branches either. It's just a bad idea all around because it<br> creates confusion for everyone. Even the gpg4win ones create problems.<br><= /blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Can y= ou explain please how vendor specific branches (like the enterprise/* ones = many years ago, or the gpg4win/* branches today) create issues?</div><div d= ir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I would not expect people to look a= t branches with vendor specific naming unless they had a reason to do so.</= div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote= gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0= 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> And as mentioned earlier, this would be a mess if we start having two<br> separate client requests for long-term KDE stack maintenance because<br> they're stopping on different points.<br></blockquote></div></div><div = dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">By separate clients, you mean diff= erent distros I assume?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">= Note that a rather key difference here is that a commercial vendor, not the= community, is the one maintaining this.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><= div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquo= te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so= lid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> <br> <br> --<br> =E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4=EF= =BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth!<br></blockquote></div></div><di= v dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Cheers,</div><div dir=3D"auto">B= en</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">= <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote></div></div></div> --0000000000006681d60651ae89ef--