why kdelibs?

[Chani]

On November 2, 2010 19:05:09 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2010, Diederik van der Boor wrote:
> > I can't stress enough it needs a good plan to limit impact on apps.
> 
> this would be absolutely critical indeed.
> 
> something that is completely opaque to me in this discussion so far is
> whether the idea is to:
> 
> a) grind kdelibs into a fine dust of classes, rename some from KFoo to QFoo
> (and all the Qtification that implies) and reorganize the remainder (which
> should be a minimal set) into a new set of K* libs
> 
> or
> 
> b) define a new set of granularities for libraries in kdelibs (non-ui,
> desktop, framework, etc.) and split up our existing classes along those new
> lines, keeping names largely in place
> 
> or
> 
> c) do a bit of (a) and (b), and if so what the guidelines for deciding when
> to do (a) and when to do (b) are
> 
> probably because it isn't a concrete plan yet, but rather a general
> proposal. these are the kinds of details that are needed before we can
> move on.

hmm, rereading 
http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Projects/KDELibsModifications
it seems to suggest splitting into only two modules.

it doesn't talk about spiltting down the non-platformy stuff further... 
although it does mention tiers. Steveire, are the tiers meant to be actually 
separate, or what?

-- 
Chani
http://chani.ca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20101102/b27a6943/attachment.sig>