← Frameworks/Meetings/201409Akademy You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators, trusted, KDEDevelopers. You can view and copy the source of this page. = Akademy 2014 Frameworks BoF = Hosted by Kevin Ottens and the KDE Frameworks crew. Notes taken during the meeting on [https://notes.kde.org/p/frameworks-bof-akademy-2014 etherpad] (not really, network not stable enough). == Agenda == * Practices topics ** Branch policy ** Commit hooks and reviews -- want to use [https://techbase.kde.org/Development/Gerrit Gerrit]? ** Getting more tests ** Licence Policy - would it be useful to allow code from Qt into KF5? * Tooling and platforms topics ** Developer story / SDK *** Go through https://todo.kde.org/?controller=board&action=show&project_id=13 ** Android support ** Non-Linux CI support ** Documentation/Book status? ** frameworks.kde.org website for PR and point of contact? * Technical topics ** libkonq ** sycoca replacement ** kdepimlibs ** Accessibility ** kglobalaccel runtime parts in kglobalaccel itself? ** Windows installers ** i18n status == Meeting Notes == === Branch Policy === There is no branch, everything happens in master. Feature branches: Should be very short lived, if they live longer than 2-3 weeks look at splitting them into smaller changes. Might not be best suited for ReviewBoard review, alternative review approaches are allowed. Rebase/split into independent commits is possible, force pushing is currently disabled on the main repos (possible on personal clones, or with new branches). Lack of long term stable branches caused concerns from packagers initially, try it nevertheless for now and see how well it works. === Commit Hooks and Reviews === Marco suggested a hook to check for the REVIEW tag, with a way to by-pass it quickly with "REVIEW: trust-me", just to force you to think about review. We want that. Mandatory all-time review vs. non-review bypass option? * available manpower, threshold to do minor changes * we had a few cases of breakage due to skipped reviews Gerrit: * Jan has it set up and ready for usage, interested repos need to be added manually at the moment (on both Gerrit and KDE Git sides) * anyone can push, any KDE developer can approve, Gitolite unaffected (direct pushes are still possible) * Jan is still working on pre-approval CI integration * How do the KDE Sysadmin feel about Gerrit? * Try on a few projects without really changing the current workflow, details on review policy configuration (self-approval, etc) for Gerrit left for later, first gain some experience with it. * Parallel use with current workflow is no problem, not conflicting with ReviewBoard and Gitolite. * There is a test repo for trying it. * Pay attention to project monitoring and adding reviewers so nothing is lost, handled differently compared to ReviewBoard notifications to mailing lists. * Try on KIO and plasma-framework until end of year, then re-evaluate. * We would need new documentation, especially for newbies. === Getting More Tests === Still low on tests, people would want more. Push for more tests during reviews, for new stuff. Make sure automated tests work without installation. Tricky due to ksycoca and QStandardPaths. QStandardPaths: * has test mode for local files, but not for system files * making it more flexible tricky due to Mac/Windows issues * provide convenience to simplify that setup for tests * alternative: allow searching in QRC, that's cross-platform and relocatable * similar problem exists for all frameworks that search for data files, all need similar test setup options Extra/betters tools for tests? See Shantanu's talk from yesterday and Zanshin for mock examples, currently not used in KF5 (yet). Coverage not currently enabled on Jenkins, we would like to have that enabled for KF5. Needs an option to set the coverage build flags (got removed from ECM). Does Jenkins have enough computing power? Aleix will look into it. Unstable tests? Either make stable or disable, there is no other way around that. === License Policy === Currently Qt code can't be copied into KDE lacking the LGPLv3 compatibility, but that is going to change. Do we need/want to adjust the license policy? Currently not really needed, wait until the need for this actually comes up. to be continued... Return to Frameworks/Meetings/201409Akademy. Retrieved from "https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Meetings/201409Akademy"