From kde-core-devel Sun Jul 15 11:27:21 2001 From: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:27:21 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: What to do after 2.2? X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=99519660812272 On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > If this plan goes out - then KDE 2.x life cycle will be a ... week! plus the year it already had. > And that leaves me with a big problem (well, at least at my company with my > KDE Workstations)... Where is the problem? KDE 3.0 won't take longer than 2.3, and it will use pretty much the same code. > As you know, dirk and harry (if I'm not mistaken) were working on the kjs > engine and improving khtml. They'll still do that for KDE 3.0... > So, I really don't understand - whats the rush? - We don't want to break BC twice - We don't want to be as far behind Qt as last time around - We want to take advantage of Qt3's features (database integration, i18n support etc.) KDE 1.x->2.0 was a near-rewrite. 2.x->3.0 won't be. > 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) This is true, but by the time we're done with 3.0 (I'd think November or December), gcc 3.0.1 will have been out for at least a couple of weeks. If you take a look at the stable branch in gcc cvs, you'll see the big problems have been fixed already. > 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.. They don't need to drop it - there's no reason not to put it into the 3.0 tree. In fact I'd be disappointed if it weren't there. > 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, Not necessarily. By the time we release a new major version (we don't break binary compatibility between minor releases), chances are we'll have gcc 3.0.2 or 3.1. > 3. Thats only maybe - but I hope that the OpenSSL guys will finally release > 1.0 version - each release they break BC... They'll continue to do that after 1.0. LLaP bero