> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Monday 26 January 2004 20:01, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> > se kmdi from kdelibs but kmdi is not in a good
> > condition and still is heavilly under development. That's why I'd like
> to
> > keep our own (but similar to kdelibs HEAD version) - to allow BIC
> changes
> > in kmdi and kdevelop mainwindow stuff. If we stick to kmdi from kde 3.2
> > and impose 3.2 compatibility we won't be allowed to make changes
> > in mainwindow and etc.
> question is: will that help any maturing of kmdi if you always keep a copy
>  
> around to avoid thinking about any BC interface that doesn't suck ? sure
> it
>  
> is easy to have a local copy and fix any stuff like you want, but there
> was
>  
> plenty of time to improve kmdi in kdelibs in a BIC manner + there is time
> t
> o 
> fix stuff in BC manner for kde 3.2.x releases.
> 
Hi,
I think the API of KMdi of kdelibs is stable now. And the library works well
here on KDE-3.1 as well, also with old Gideon IDEAl style. I don't plan to
invest more work on KMdi in the next few months. The only thing that needs to
be done is to backport kmultitabbar.h/cpp from kdevelop/lib/qextmdi to
kdelibs/kutils of HEAD, to have the old Gideon IDEAl style on KDE-3.2 too, but in a
way that the Konqueror UI still works well. But I don't have KDE-3.2. So
sorry, I can't do that.

Cheers
F@lk

P.S.: I don't support the idea of dropping KDE-3.1 support but it's OK with
me, so I will stay on the old KDevelop-3 checkout for my 3.1.

-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam für nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail


_______________________________________________
Kdevelop-devel mailing list
Kdevelop-devel@barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de
http://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel