Qt 3.2 requirement

Marc Mutz marc.mutz at uni-bielefeld.de
Wed Jul 30 15:48:49 BST 2003

On Tuesday 29 July 2003 20:34, Marc Mutz wrote:
> 1. better layering of the code, since there is pressure to find code
>    that works with both versions to reduce #ifdefs and enable
>    switching to the later library version _without_ recompiling (what
>    do we need BC for if we don't support this?)

I'd like to expand on this.

If you fix code that broke on Qt 3.0 -> Qt 3.1 and Qt 3.1 -> Qt 3.2 such 
that you don't need #ifdefs, the fixed code has a *much* better chance 
to work with Qt 3.3 out of the box instead of breaking again. Please 
consider the saving in developer time that results from this piece of 
code working out of the box as compared to this piece of code breaking 
one year later, with no-one remembering the place of breakage from last 
year and the need to develop a new fix.

I think this is actually what Bernhard meant with increased stability. 
We know that you get an interface only right if you have two 
independent users. Same probably goes for implementation. It's better 
if it works with two Qt (or kdelibs) versions, since that means that it 
most probably also work with the next one.


The first casualty of war is the truth.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20030730/8c9d28d2/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list