[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:       Mathieu Chouinard <chouimat () videotron ! ca>
Date:       2001-07-15 15:35:59
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 15 July 2001 07:27, 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.
According to the gcc website, gcc 3.0.1 is scheduled for early august.

>
> 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
Mathieu

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