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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: My statement about the latest flamewar ;-)
From:       mosfet <mosfet () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2001-06-19 5:20:26
[Download RAW message or body]

No. Read the bottom part of the statement for information about Pixie.

Shawn Gordon wrote:
> 
> The thing that doesn't make any sense to me at this stage, I haven't heard
> any reason, is why did Waldo ask for Pixie to be removed?  Was there some
> technical reason?
> 
> At 09:08 PM 6/18/2001, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Why did you break KDE 2.x backwards compatibility (from a user, and
> >possibly, developer perspective) during a freeze?  I thought it was
> >agreed that breaking KDE backwards compatibility is something that
> >should be left for KDE 3.0?  Maintaining backwards compatibility means
> >a stable kdelibs/kdebase, and this doesn't seem to be unreasonable.
> >Respecting a freeze and not finicking with kdelibs/kdebase isn't
> >something unreasonable either, IMHO.
> >
> >Could you please consider postponing your change in policy after the
> >KDE 2.2 release?  It will so simplify the situation, and make many
> >happier.  I don't see forking and renaming the styles in KDE to be a
> >solution, unless I suppose there is a wizard to update configuration
> >files and inform the users of this mess.  It's the users that suffer
> >either way.
> >
> >Removing Pixie is much more understandable on the other hand, it never
> >was part of the core desktop.  Anyway, what do I know.
> >
> >-N.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Shawn Gordon
> President
> theKompany.com
> www.thekompany.com
> 949-713-3276

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