Issues with: kf6-prison_6.23.0~rc1-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into experimental

[Aurélien COUDERC]

Le samedi 7 février 2026, 23:16:37 heure normale d’Europe centrale Boyuan Yang a écrit :
> Hi,

> Thanks for the heads up. I was aware of the issue that KF6 packages shall be upgraded
> all together using stable channel (or otherwise it's not tested/supported), and that's
> why I was uploading rc version prison to Experimental now. Although not every developer
> makes use of Debian Experimental, I consider packages in Experimental to be like a sandbox
> so that we can test wild things out before targeting actual coordinated uploads.
> On the other hand, I do my homework to review upstream source code
> diffs before uploading, thanks to the source code availability on invent.kde.org.

OK I see, using the rc from the invent tag is OK.

> Do you consider carrying backported patches on top of official releases to be a
> good option? Essentially the final outcome would be the same
> (e.g., v6.20/v6.22 + patches_we_need_in_upstream_git_trunk ~= v6.23), but we would
> be still using official tarballs.

Carrying patches is definitely OK, we do it on a regular basis, mostly when requested by upstream to fix high profile bugs but not only.

> In the near future I am looking into the possibility for a bump in kf6-* packages from
> 6.20 to 6.22. I will see how that can be done in a proper way.

Looking into the possibility is fine.

What I’m missing the most from your answer is the same as what triggered my initial email : I don’t read that yes, you’ll be coordinating upload of package sets with the rest of the team and not just go your way. That’s not how teams work.
Uploading random packages from Gear that are (mostly) unrelated to each other is fine.

But if you’re going to upload tightly coupled package sets like frameworks or plasma you need to share your plans and accept feedback. Nothing formal, dropping a line on the IRC channel is enough.


Thanks,
--
Aurélien