Qt 3.1b1

[Allan Sandfeld Jensen]

On Tuesday 10 September 2002 00:54, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> 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?)
>
Why "require" it if we dont need it? 
It is going to have more bugs than the welltestet 3.0.5-6 release to start 
with. Wouldnt it be better to support both even if this requires a few 
#ifdefs to take advantage of new 3.1 features?