2.0 plans was: Reminder: commit major changes...

[Ian Monroe]

On 6/5/06, Max Howell <max.howell at methylblue.com> wrote:
> The port was never planned to be started, so we never arranged a policy.
> Really it shouldn't have been started, because as you point out, we now
> have a lack of syncronisation.
>
> I'm sure sebr will be delighted to spend another 2 hours surgically
> removing moodbar from amaroK 2.
>
> OTOH I'm sure many others will be delighted that moodbar has magically
> reappeared in amaroK 2! ;-)
>
> Since we have the port, the main problem is most developers don't have
> kdelibs4/qt4/amarok2 checked out or compiled, and I think it's harsh to
> expect people to.
>
> But anyway, a lot of stuff will have to be rewritten completely for 2,
> ie you can't avoid it for important stuff with a listview (playlist,
> playlist browser, collection browser), and we made great plans for
> making core components much better for 2, which requires basically a
> rewrite.
>
> So quite possibly keeping the branches in sync will be a waste of effort
> anyway. We'll have to reimplement a lot of features when we get round to
> doing more to amaroK 2 than making it 1.4 based on Qt4/KDE4.

What I kind of foresee is just doing the port again (at like 1.4.4),
but bringing in some of the stuff that Gabor has been doing in the
current port (like the sidebar). I think this would be easier then to
trying to forward port all the stuff that has been going on.

> Eventually we'll all have an amaroK 2 checkout, so eventually we may
> have less sync issues to worry about. But for now I don't know what to
> suggest. My opinion is: don't worry about it, but perhaps we should keep
> a document of bug fixes that shouldn't be lost etc.
>
> Max