From kde-core-devel Wed Jul 30 14:48:49 2003 From: Marc Mutz Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:48:49 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: Qt 3.2 requirement X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=105963934229680 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--Boundary-02=_Sr9J/ttWu+EZEiw" --Boundary-02=_Sr9J/ttWu+EZEiw Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 29 July 2003 20:34, Marc Mutz wrote: > 1. better layering of the code, since there is pressure to find code > =A0 =A0that works with both versions to reduce #ifdefs and enable > switching=A0to the later library version _without_ recompiling (what > do we need BC for if we don't support this?) I'd like to expand on this. If you fix code that broke on Qt 3.0 -> Qt 3.1 and Qt 3.1 -> Qt 3.2 such=20 that you don't need #ifdefs, the fixed code has a *much* better chance=20 to work with Qt 3.3 out of the box instead of breaking again. Please=20 consider the saving in developer time that results from this piece of=20 code working out of the box as compared to this piece of code breaking=20 one year later, with no-one remembering the place of breakage from last=20 year and the need to develop a new fix. I think this is actually what Bernhard meant with increased stability.=20 We know that you get an interface only right if you have two=20 independent users. Same probably goes for implementation. It's better=20 if it works with two Qt (or kdelibs) versions, since that means that it=20 most probably also work with the next one. Marc =2D-=20 The first casualty of war is the truth. --Boundary-02=_Sr9J/ttWu+EZEiw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/J9rS3oWD+L2/6DgRApVAAKCmN1hKqxE4Zm7XYSVYoD08gMCkpQCgvlh5 HKNnJV64hwBUPH+MocXeyWI= =k5Ra -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Sr9J/ttWu+EZEiw--