[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Qt 3.2 requirement
From:       Ralf Nolden <nolden () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-07-25 21:36:21
[Download RAW message or body]


On Freitag, 25. Juli 2003 22:08, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Friday 25 July 2003 19:47, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> > On Freitag, 25. Juli 2003 14:32, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > > In my experience your argument leads a huge block
> > > consisting of QT /kdelibs /application that is changed altogether,
> > > leading to a lower quality of the overall system
> > >
> > > When trying to fix bugs in currently used KDE versions,
> > > I've frequently been pointed to try the "latest" and "greatest"
> > > version from CVS on the whole block because that was what
> > > developers are using. It leads to problems which were not present
> > > before and I did not get to the point in actually fixing the
> > > application bug. It is not a weak argument, because stablising KDE
> > > application code towards a certainly level is getting very cost
> > > intensive.
> >
> > If you use qt-copy that's your fault :-)
>
> It is not a good process to force the stability and schedule of QT
> onto KDE nor the kdelibs schedule on the applications.
>
> >  You should take the official
> > release version from Trolltech and the beta versions of that version have
> > been tested with KDE plus the results folded back into Qt.
>
> That didn't help way back then.
>
> > You won't and can't prevent developers to use the newest library and so
> > over time the whole thing becomes a restriction to say we only use
> > qt-3.1.x because qt-3.2 may have the classes you want to use. Also, for
> > those who want to test indian languages they *need* to take Qt 3.2. It
> > *will* be a requirement. The more it is tested, the better, because
> > within the timeframe of the KDE 3.2 release a bugfix release of Qt 3.2
> > will be available for sure, so we can have KDE 3.2 use a *stable* and
> > *well-tested* Qt 3.2.x
>
> I wouldn't fully agree with this.
> KDE libs should have their own stability criteria and not getting forced by
> the QT schedule. You unnecessarily force all the developers to test QT.

Don't you realize that it's way harder to force the developers to stick with 
an older Qt than for the others to grab and compile a newer Qt ? They want to 
use things like QSplashScreen, see the recent other mails here.

Ralf

-- 
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden@kde.org

The K Desktop Environment       The KDevelop Project
http://www.kde.org              http://www.kdevelop.org

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]