Qt 3.1b1

[Waldo Bastian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 09 September 2002 02:39 pm, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Sep 2002, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> > Simon already said that he doesn't see much point in reverting it, but
> > I'd also like to see the opinion of other guys first, for example Dirk.
>
> Simon and Lars were working the afternoon on getting the BIC issues out of
> qt-copy, so I believe this point is mood now.
>
> Of course another thing to think about is wether KDE 3.1 should require Qt
> 3.1 or not, because then we're bound to the Qt 3.1 release date with our
> schedule.
>
> I haven't made up my mind yet if that is worth it. Feedback welcome,

I think waiting for Qt 3.1 (including some test period) would be nice because 
it will ensure that KDE 3.1 will work well with Qt 3.1. If we release before 
Qt 3.1 is released people will without doubt start using Qt 3.1 once it 
becomes available but we will not be able to fix any inter-operability issues 
that it may have. 

It also means we can require Qt 3.1 for KDE 3.1, although I'm not exactly sure 
what kind of advantages Qt3.1 brings over Qt3.0 (Is there a changelog 
somewhere?)

Cheers,
Waldo
- -- 
bastian at kde.org  |   SuSE Labs KDE Developer  |  bastian at suse.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9fSauN4pvrENfboIRArLJAJ41vOfwEADE1NfLdoK2A72Q1bLRqgCcDJGW
R1UI3DFJ1ZdgZvCppYwYgFQ=
=mVzH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----