From kde-core-devel Tue May 31 12:05:18 2005 From: Brad Hards Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:05:18 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: Moving 3.5 development into branches/KDE/3.5 Message-Id: <200505312205.26478.bradh () frogmouth ! net> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=111754123124418 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart14346626.WJbbScHO7D" --nextPart14346626.WJbbScHO7D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:34 pm, Stephan Kulow wrote: > I'm also fine with whole of kdepim joining trunk development only in > august. I even suggest we remove kdepim from trunk then and copy it back > into trunk later. But that doesn't work for kicker. We really need a > gradually ported KDE4 to test changes done to the framework. And we have = to > make sure we're not loosing overview - and if all KDE 3.5 development is > going to be merged by me, we're going to loose overview. An alternative strategy: 0. Only port kdelibs to Qt4 at this stage 1. Do the application porting as an experiment/testcase only - a few tricky= =20 apps from kdebase, a couple of little ones, a couple of bigger ones. Don't= =20 try for a complete, stable port. 2. Spend the time between now and the 3.5 freeze on kdelibs polishing - can= we=20 get 100% code coverage in tests? could we valgrind kdelibs (tests) complete= ly=20 clean? Could we document it better?=20 Then when 3.5 is done, and kdelibs is mature, then the port will be a big h= it,=20 but kdelibs may be in better shape, Qt4 will at least be released, and ther= e=20 won't be so much bidirectional porting to annoy application authors. Brad --nextPart14346626.WJbbScHO7D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCnFMGGwwszQ/PZzgRAtW4AJwMfofe/g7+x1WHgYhtH95wrfbtnwCcD9hD YjPEpDXIc0jfb/8JPzK6l/s= =0ovs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart14346626.WJbbScHO7D--