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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: Don't publish wv2 from koffice: request for approval to commit
From:       Shaheedur Reza Haque <srhaque () theiet ! org>
Date:       2010-03-30 11:01:53
Message-ID: 4bb1db67.0d67f10a.60fe.ffffd7ee () mx ! google ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
>> OK, that was my understanding too, and *ass*umed koffice would be the
>> newer
>> provider of wv2.  So, I don't understand the worry about conflicting with
>> sourceforge's (older) wv2.
> 
> I think that's a temporary thing, since wv2 is still packaged. And we're
> right now not working on making koffice's wv2 available for wider usage --
> if people ask about it, it's early enough to do something about it.

Hi all,

Actually, I have no interest in external packaging for the koffice wv2 copy 
at this time, especially if it entails any compromises that affect koffice, 
and which therefore discourage casual contribution (e.g. as I count myself 
these days).

Examples of the sorts of compromise I have in mind are the non-use of kDebug 
in the implementation, and the non-use of QString in the API. These made 
perfect sense when Werner (and I) thought that wv2 would be picked up 
generally, but there is no evidence to say that will ever happen.

Therefore, when somebody suggested the rename on IRC, it made perfect sense 
to me.

I trust that makes sense? If not, please say!

Thanks, Shaheed
_______________________________________________
koffice-devel mailing list
koffice-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]