Qt 3.2 requirement

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Mon Jul 28 10:46:24 BST 2003

On Friday 25 July 2003 23:36, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> On Freitag, 25. Juli 2003 22:08, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

> > KDE libs should have their own stability criteria and not getting forced
> > by the QT schedule. You unnecessarily force all the developers to test QT.
> Don't you realize that it's way harder to force the developers to stick
> with an older Qt than for the others to grab and compile a newer Qt ? They
> want to use things like QSplashScreen, see the recent other mails here.

It goes to the core of a something I criticise about the KDE development process.
(As flames often ignite faster than I like, let me add that I mean friendly criticism.
It is meant to help improving the already nicely working process not bashing it.)

Naturally some people want to play with new stuff, that is perfectly fine.
Others want to keep stuff stable, that's also a worthwhile  goal.
As KDE gets bigger and more successful or widespread with users
the latter group is growing in size. If your force the latter group, 
you put a limit on the stability you can reach.

One approach to help this, would be to increase to
have each software layer "defend" its own goals against the other layers.
This not yet a full worked out proposal, just an idea on how it might work.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2145 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030728/0c91d8dc/attachment.bin>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list