From kdevelop-devel Thu Aug 09 05:17:11 2001 From: Roland Krause Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 05:17:11 +0000 To: kdevelop-devel Subject: Re: branch for kdevelop X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kdevelop-devel&m=99733433630249 Eray, --- Eray Ozkural wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 08 August 2001 11:45 am, you wrote: > > > > Yes, but in the last months I personaly had the feeling that there > was a > > split in team. Yes, there is a split. I can not speak for the others as to their contribution plans. For me, KDevelop2 is about 75% where I need it to be. KDevelop3 is about 10%. I can wait a year or maybe two for HEAD to get into a usable state, or I can invest a little bit to make it fit a bit better over time. Additionally, I dont see _any_ development effort in gideon going into a direction that is actually interesting for me. I need a decent variant of Visual Studio on Unix, that's it for me. Agreed, it is easy to underestimate effort in implementing anything in KDevelop2, but the code base isnt really as bad as it is often depicted. > Will John, Falk and all others work on Gideon in the > future? Ask Falk :-) Oh no, you can probably guess his answer as of now... :-) Falks MDI is btw. one of the major reasons for me to throw effort behind KDevelop2. MDI provides a more usable interface for me. Others strongly disagree. Search the mailing list archives from about February this year for the "discussion that ended all discussions" about KDevelop. Since then, the developers of HEAD and KDEVELOP_1_4 have effectively stopped talking to each other. > > > Is there some discrepancy between CVS HEAD and KEVELOP_1_4 > branch These are entirely different animals, some things have been ported up, most things have not. > or is this due to my utter misunderstanding of cvs? (I presume > kdevelop-2.x > development continues in KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH which has been just > created) It will probably for a while continue in this branch. I have a list of features I plan to implement as time permits. I have considered an official fork of the codebase. I still toy with the thought, given the fact, that the name KDevelop will go to gideon soon. > > As far as I've seen making gideon as usable as kdevelop-2.0 should > not be too > difficult. The parts organization is well thought and gideon can be > managed > in such a way that it should be possible to work on new features and > offer > stable releases at the same time, more like mozilla's tree plans. > IMHO, > further "stability" releases can be made directly from branches off > main > trunk for better concentration of effort. That is only an idea, > though. :) Gideon has a better architecture then KDevelop2. It is probably save to say that it has gotten close to zero testing and that gideon development covers a fairly wide range of interests, reaching from java to PHP. The time will hopefully come where I will have to reevaluate my point of view towards gideon vs. KDevelop2. Regards Roland ===== -- Roland Krause In the garage of life there are mechanics and there are drivers. Mechanics wanted! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ - to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request@kdevelop.org with the following body: unsubscribe »your-email-address«