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

[Dan Meltzer]

On Monday 05 June 2006 12:28 pm, Ian Monroe wrote:
> 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.

This is probably the most sensible thing, especially considdering kdelibs is 
still in a major state of flux.

I've been working with cmake, and almost have it building amaroK, this should 
make it easier in the future also.

The amount of changes on branches/work/kde4 are probably less than those on 
trunk currently, so maybe the smartest thing to do would be to (at some point 
in the future)
1. update branches/stable/extragear/multimedia/amarok with current 1.4 stuff 
in trunk (There is no real need to keep a 1.3 branch, thats what tags are 
for.

2. "sideport" (I Coined a new phrase!) stuff from branches/work/kde4 to 
trunk/, and make trunk the 2.0 development.

This is probably the least troublesome overall, but others probably have 
opinions.

Dan,
>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok mailing list
> Amarok at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok