From kde-core-devel  Sun Oct 31 21:10:04 2010
From: Chani <chanika () gmail ! com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 21:10:04 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: why kdelibs?
Message-Id: <201010312210.05448.chanika () gmail ! com>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=128855935004941
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart322164343.fDrZKRhDgm"

--nextPart322164343.fDrZKRhDgm
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On October 30, 2010 19:44:29 Parker Coates wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 13:01, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> >>=20
> >> On Thursday 28 October 2010 John Layt wrote:
> >> > Big questions. Anyone with big answers? :-)
> >>=20
> >> Here is a big answer:
> >>=20
> >> Let's merge Qt and the KDE development platform. Let's put all KDE
> >> libraries, support libraries, platform modules into Qt, remove the
> >> redundancies in Qt, and polish it into one nice consistent set of APIs,
> >> providing both, the  wonderful KDE integration, consistency and
> >> convenience, as well as the simplicity and portability of the Qt
> >> platform.
> >>=20
> >> I know what you think ("madness", "no", "KDE 5", "impossible",
> >> "governance", "binary compatibility", "Nokia", "impossible", ...), but
> >> if you put that aside for a while and think big, wouldn't that be a
> >> wonderful answer to all the struggles we have with kdelibs?
> >=20
> > I know we keep coming to the same place, but no, it would not be a
> > wonderful answer, it would be a disaster like it was for KPrinter.
> >=20
> > Just for those that have short memories let me explain what happened.
> >=20
> > We killed our printing stack because we were "promised" that QPrinter
> > would be maintained and better than KPrinter was. And years later,
> > QPrinter is unmaintained and provides less features KPrinter delivered
> > much more years ago.
> >=20
> > So please come back to the real world were Nokia doesn't have infinite
> > manpower and where the only thing Nokia wants to do is sell cell phones.
>=20
> I think Qt's semi-adoption of Phonon is another very (probably even
> more) relevant example. At the time everyone (myself included) thought
> it was a really great move. KDE produced code would see a wider
> audience and Qt would take on some of the maintenance load. Win-win,
> right?
>=20
> But it turns out that Qt's needs didn't fully match KDE's so the KDE
> version had "go on without" the Qt version. Nowadays, Qt's Phonon is
> nothing more than a mild inconvenience for KDE, as every few weeks
> someone shows up with KDE/Phonon build conflicts.
>=20

I notice something both of those have in common: qt was supposed to take on=
=20
maintainership.

so perhaps it could work better if the things that are their own libraries=
=20
stay under kde maintainership, but in some way that can be more easily=20
marketed as qt addons, and the things we would fully upstream would only be=
=20
the ones that enhance an existing properly-maintained feature or are otherw=
ise=20
very unlikely to be neglected.

also, nokia does seem interested in getting community maintainership of qt=
=20
things, so upstreaming won't necessarily mean giving up control...

=2D-=20
Chani
http://chani.ca

--nextPart322164343.fDrZKRhDgm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAkzN2y0ACgkQeGbAwpIS3GxLWwCeNTpLgKJ4IFQv1V/Z9zygzdez
7KUAoJe+s37hoBzN1WfblzY9cIRoMk4U
=W7NV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart322164343.fDrZKRhDgm--