[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:       Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero () redhat ! de>
Date:       2001-07-15 11:27:21
[Download RAW message or body]

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

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