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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: What to do after 2.2?
From:       Peter Kelly <pmk () post ! com>
Date:       2001-07-15 9:54:04
[Download RAW message or body]

Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:

>>Well, I hope the answers are convincing enough to point out that the pro
>>sides are much much more than the cons. In fact, I see no cons at _all_
>>
> 
> I do, and here is my point...
> 
> If this plan goes out - then KDE 2.x life cycle will be a ... week! (yes, 7 
> days, no spelling mistake) - thats because the final TAG on KDE_2_2_RELEASE 
> will be next monday, July 23rd, and after 2.2 will be out - there will be 
> (maybe) 2.2.1 for the last bug fixes...
> 
> And that leaves me with a big problem (well, at least at my company with my 
> KDE Workstations)...
> 
> As you know, dirk and harry (if I'm not mistaken) were working  on the kjs 
> engine and improving khtml. Not doing the KDE 2.3 will simply leave me and 
> many users stuck with Konqueror  which is currently not the most stable 
> version that we know, unfinished KJS engine (with garbage collector if I 
> understood dirk correctly), and with some others bugs that we still have (the 
> printing problem that I mentioned in my previous email for example)...


I would certainly agree on this point.... I think having a 2.3 version 
will be very important from the point of getting a stable and relatively 
bug-free version of khtml. Right now there are over 700 open bug reports 
for khtml and kjs combined. A few more months and a 2.3 release would 
hopefully mean we can get the majority of issues sorted out.

Assuming there will be a considerable time before the 3.0 release, it 
will mean that there will be a "stable" version of khtml out there that 
people can use while bigger changes & feature additions are taking place 
for 3.0. Assuming other apps take the same path, we can then take our 
time with 3.0 and make any major architectural changes etc. there instead.


> 
> So, I really don't understand - whats the rush?
> 
> Lets look at some facts:
> 
> 1. Yes, QT 3.0 beta 2 is basically frozen, and we got hebrew/arabic support 
> which is what I need, thats good..
> 
> 2. You'll need to work with gcc 3.x - but as many people can tell you - the 
> gcc 3.0 is not in great shape right now (try to compile KDE 2.2 on it and see 
> if all the things work to see what I mean) - so we'll need to either stick 
> with 2.95.x or wait for 3.0.1 - which is - bad
> 
> 3. Many people want to add their features which they worked on while KDE 2.2 
> is in feature freeze session (examples - Staikos on security, kentz on KDE 
> installer, and the fonts installer [forgot the author name - sorry]. Telling 
> them to drop everything they did while it was feature freeze because we're 
> moving to 2.9/3.0 is definately not nice and definately unprofessional..
> 
> What I would suggest is simple - WAIT...
> 
> If we'll have 2.3 release around October/November - then we'll have 2 new 
> things that can definately assist us:
> 
> 1. QT 3.0 final version - tested, ready to use
> 2. GCC 3.0.1 - I know that most distributions want to use it, but 3.0 is not 
> exactly a production stable, so all the distributions are trying to fix all 
> the bugs until 3.0.1. My guess is both Mandrake and Redhat will be out with 
> gcc 3.0.1, SuSE will follow and at the end of the trail - Debian and 
> Slackware - so we'll have a perfect compiler to use and skip those BC 
> problems (twice, one with QT and one with GCC as bero pointed out).
> 3. Thats only maybe - but I hope that the OpenSSL guys will finally release 
> 1.0 version - each release they break BC...
> 
> So, IMHO, these are the cons, and these are my thoughts....
> 
> Thanks,
> Hetz
> 
> 


-- 
Peter Kelly
pmk@post.com

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