On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 05:24:53PM +0100, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> > and, fwiw, i don't buy the "maturity" statement that pops up now and
> > then. some areas were not touched for years simply because nobody
> > cared enough and felt up to the task. but that does not mean that
> > the stuff is in a good shape. if you measure kde's api cleannes by
> > qt standards, you'll find a picture not exactly to our favour, even
> > with the current qt api, which matthias found to be sooo bad. ;)
> > if changing that means annoying the poor application developers -
> > too bad - for them.
> 
> FWIW, I don't buy the "revamp" argument. Unless it's done by a person
> that has made the initial implementation or has used the API for a
> long time, the revamper will just make other mistakes. That leaves
> everyone with changing APIs and less stability.
> 
for me that sounds like a good argument to start the revamp early. and
it's sort of self-evident that the revamp should be done by somebody
intimately know with the matter.

> Writing something isn't too hard. Making a substantial improvement
> usually is.
>
yes, as i already said, that's one of the reasons for the sorry state of
several kde classes.

> Another point for making fewer releases is to let libs stuff mature more 
> outside kdelibs. One example of where this was not done is the resource 
> framework. That should not have left kdepim for quite a while yet. 
> Actually the only reason it did was that it was necessary to have it in 
> libs to make the kabc resource work.
> 
yes, that's a thing that should not happen. that's an argument for
freezing libs long before apps during a release cycle.
the trolls work around that by making non-official apis ...

greetings

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.