From kde-core-devel  Wed Jul 30 07:06:02 2003
From: Ralf Nolden <nolden () kde ! org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:06:02 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Qt 3.2 requirement
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=105954883207781
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--Boundary-02=_a52J/CZd7VeM5gX"


--Boundary-02=_a52J/CZd7VeM5gX
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: signed data
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mittwoch, 30. Juli 2003 02:07, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 July 2003 01:59, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 July 2003 01:14, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > > So make my point as clearly as possibly can : make the developers'
> > > life as easy as possible. Don't impose rules or restrictions unless
> > > you absolutely have to. There are enough as it is already.
> >
> > Well said. Note that not forcing application developers to upgrade libs
> > is one of those things that makes developers' life easy.
>
> If you're developing a KDE app, then you work only on stable releases,
> which you have to upgrade to sooner or later. As it's been already said,
> upgrading Qt is almost a detail compared to upgrading KDE.

Plus external app developers from apps that you want to compile now use Qt =
3.2=20
too. That means that with designer files you have to try to manually fix th=
e=20
3.2 tag in the ui's xml code to try to compile it with Qt 3.1.x. That said,=
=20
as compatibility between Qt 3.1 and Qt 3.2 is preserved in being backwards=
=20
compatible you're still facing the problem of being upwards compatible.

Qt has never been such a big issue like we're discussing it here. Other lib=
s=20
like libxml2 or other stuff are way more complicated. But if there needs to=
=20
be an upgrade to make KDE's life easier, we're asking for it. I think we=20
should see Qt more as a part of KDE than anything else. And with that the=20
reasoning for arguing back and forth about using Qt 3.2 with HEAD are bogus=
=2E=20

=46or the branch, of course, Qt 3.2 would be a "feature update". The users=
=20
*could* potentially upgrade Qt from the recommended 3.1 to 3.2, but they=20
don't have to. branch doesn't change so much and it's a policy there to sti=
ck=20
with Qt 3.1.=20

I think a further discussion of the whole topic is quite pointless at least=
=20
from my POV. People will upgrade and that will over time make it more and=20
more problematic for those who want to enforce HEAD to run with Qt 3.1.x. I=
f=20
you want to have that "feature", go ahead and bug people to stay compatible=
 -=20
or upgrade because your time doesn't permit to step on anyones toes annoyin=
g=20
them to please stick with Qt 3.1 :-)

Ralf

=2D-=20
We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
=2D-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralf Nolden
nolden@kde.org

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

--Boundary-02=_a52J/CZd7VeM5gX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/J25au0nKi+w1Ky8RAl9AAJ4/vs41N2w7zv1MpZz17IrML377cACeNsey
vWIMN+SqkKm8cjrxFFq0lnE=
=WXU4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Boundary-02=_a52J/CZd7VeM5gX--