[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: What's the deal with kdedb?
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2001-05-16 18:02:32
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 16 May 2001 19:58, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2001 04:48, David Faure wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 May 2001 16:33, Torsten Rahn wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 16 May 2001 13:45, Matthias Elter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:16:27AM -0400, Alessandro Praduroux wrote:
> > > > > and wait for QT3/KDE3.
> > > >
> > > > Just for the record, the plan is to port KDE 2.x to Qt3. There wont be
> > > > a KDE 3.0 for at least another year. Maintaining the 2.x platform is
> > > > critical for KDE now. So we might have a stable KDE 2.X based on Qt3 in
> > > > fall 2001.
> > > >
> > > > Matthias
> > >
> > > According to our versioning-scheme a KDE 2.x based on QT3 _IS_
> > > KDE3 because shifts of the major version number happen as soon
> > > as KDE becomes binary-incompatible.
> >
> > We didn't switch to "KDE 3" when openssl made a binary incompatible
> > release. And still, this broke BC for KDE users....
> 
> So you are saying that it is not possible to provide a binary compatible 
> platform because there is always one clueless group of developers who fucks 
> up and that we shouldn't even try because of that?

Well, ok, we should still try, but I was pointing out that BC and version numbers
are different issues. 
However, users will get less confused if KDE major version == Qt major version,
that's for sure.

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://perso.mandrakesoft.com/~david/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]