[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:       Hetz Ben Hamo <hetz () magnifire ! net>
Date:       2001-07-15 12:51:41
[Download RAW message or body]

Bero,

I'm affraid you're missing here 1 point...

The plan (if I understood it correctly) is:

2.2 - release within 2 weeks
2.9 - full port of KDE from QT 2.3.1 to QT 3.0 beta 2,3, whatever..
3.0 - which is KDE 2.9 + additional features. 

Now, you might think it's short - but it's surely won't. Just an example - 
currently the bidi in Konqueror is totallty different then whats on QT 3.0. 
Thats why many bugs in Bidi cannot be fixed right now, so the bidi stuff will 
have to be replaced with QT 3.0 bidi implementations.

so moving from 2.2 -> 2.9 -> 3.0 will take at least 5-6 months based on the 
speed of kde development from 2.0 -> 2.1 -> 2.2..

Hetz

On Sunday 15 July 2001 14:27, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> 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]