From kde-core-devel Wed Jul 30 09:13:37 2003 From: Stephan Kulow Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:13:37 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: Qt 3.2 requirement X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=105955650913812 On Tuesday 29 July 2003 18:48, Rob Kaper wrote: > On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 06:17:28PM +0200, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > > "decent layering" is a nice theory. "Fixing the source of the problem and not > > symptoms" is another. None withstand the test of reality. > > That's only true when we don't practice those theories. Oh! How long did it take you to come up with a phrase that useless? I'd really welcome if people could come up with arguments instead of phrases. Marc at least tried, even though his arguments didn't convince me so far we're doing something wrong (But I better continue reading - I see there are some mails left to read :) I'm actually not questioning pracmatism is a good thing to do. We simply do not have time for things nice to have. So the only balance I see in question is: how many bug fixes we loose when developer A puts in a feature/bug fix that requires developer B to compile instead of code. But if this "support Qt 3.1" burden creates more work to those doing the fixes, then I prefer removing the burden. Every line added with #ifdefs _is_ work, so it needs to be balanced. So far supporting Qt 3.1 isn't a huge problem, but with every developer switching to 3.2 it becomes a bigger problem as 3.1 becomes more untested and untested software is _bad_ software (another phrase to add to your diary, Rob) - so I for myself prefer starting a compile job overnight and from then beeing sure I test what will be KDE 3.2 instead of saving the CPU cycles for the screensaver. That many others do not share that, I'm aware of though. Greetings, Stephan