On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Rob Kaper wrote:

> This looks like breaking binary compatiblity twice and technically it will
> be, on the other hand 2.9 should by no means be considered as official
> release.

I'd say, go straight from 2.2 to 3.0 (or 2.9).
If we do a 2.3 first, we'll give people more time to write 2.x
applications that will need porting to 3.0 once we've started.

Qt3 is already in quite a usable state, and at least in the parts we're
normally using, the API is frozen - so there's nothing that prevents us
from keeping KDE_2_2_BRANCH open while porting everything to Qt 3.0.
Shouldn't be much work by the way (except for the styles). Definitely
not the 1.x->2.x hell. And we could get rid of having to sync parts of
the code with the Qt rsync repository all the time.

Qt 3.0 gives us quite a lot of stuff we'll need - among others the SQL
plugins, better i18n support (I'd rather have this in before the gnome
guys release 2.0 with pango and can claim they've had it first ;) ),
QTable, the RichText editor (could simplify some things...) etc.

LLaP
bero