On Monday 24 September 2001 20:44, Lars Knoll wrote:
> There might still be the possibility we want to release an update to khtml
> before Qt3, so I'd rather prefer going with (c).

(a) is IMO no option, and I agree with Lars that (b) is quite the ugly way to 
get KHTML Qt3 compatible. After all we want to get rid of QT_NO_COMPAT, not 
prolongue its life-span...

Like you said kdenox and Qt/E need Qt 2 as well at the moment so some form of 
(c) is required anyway. Therefore I'd prefer option (c) here if possible. 
That is purely from a technical point of view.

Personally I have another reason for preferring (c) over (d) as well, namely 
that if you go for (d) you'd screw my attempts to hack in @media support. 
Except for this feature in KHTML I am doing application development and not 
library development so having a stable KDE is quite a big plus.

If possible I would like to keep on running KDE 2.2 branch for at least a 
month or so at work. By then we need to make the definitive decision whether 
EPoint will be KDE 2.x or 3.0 based.

Anyway, (c) sounds best to me in all aspects.

Martijn