"Cornelius's grand plan" - Merging KDElibs into Qt
ogoffart at kde.org
Sun Oct 31 22:22:22 GMT 2010
I reply to the thread.
I am a Nokia employee working on Qt, I joined Trolltech in 2007, shortly
before te aquisition. But what I am saying here is personal and does not
Regarding release cycles, we want to improve our releases cycle and release
much faster. We want to have 6 or even 3 months release cycle. We tried with
Qt 4.7 already, but we failed. One of the reason was that Qt is becomming too
big. This is why we want to modularize. Which mean that showstopper in webkit
or multimedia, would not block the release of other components. This hopefully
will help us reach the goal of short release cycles.
You might have all noticed by now that focus of Qt developer has changed
towards mobile stuff, leaving desktop behind.
And this is where the contribution model and open gouvernance comes into
We have always wanted to open the developement as much as possible. We have
already acheived a lot, and want to continue. This is unfortunatelly a slow
process, but we are getting there.
The open gouvernance would allow KDE or other people to take over the
maintainance of Qt classes that are relevant for KDE. This include obviously
push access and everything. But we are not willing to sacrifice our quality
standard, which are different from current KDE standard. (This can be
understood as coding for a library is different than coding an application)
Regarding the licence agreement, I cannot comment on that. But I will just
point out that contributors keep copyright on their code, and that many other
free software projects (notably the ones from the FSF) require to give such
rights to an entity.
But I can understand that in its current form, it gives an unfair advantage to
So back in 2005-2006, in the time we ported KDE to Qt4, one of the goal was
already to reduce kdelibs size by using as much Qt classes as possible, and
try to remove the KXxx if there was a QXxxx. So this is not a new goal.
We managed to make it work for many classes, but still many classes could not
disapear because the KDE equivalent provided more features or was way more
advanced. I blame Trolltech on that, they should have looked at what KDElibs3
was providing on top of Qt to be able to provide the same level of features.
Now Qt pays the price for that, because integrating a pure Qt application in
KDE is much harder.
And things have not changed. This is a problem of mentality. I feel like most
Qt dev just do not care about KDELibs or other 3rd party library built with Qt
and what they could bring.
But having more KDE people involved into technical decisions regarding Qt will
definitively help, I want that to happen!
Le Sunday 31 October 2010, Mark Kretschmann a écrit :
> Hey all,
> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why
> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there.
> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea:
> It's a very controversial idea. However, I think it is so refreshing
> that it deserves some more thought. Personally, I think the idea is
> great, if we can overcome some of the obvious road blocks. I would
> love to read some honest and direct thoughts from you guys.
> What do you think about it?
More information about the kde-core-devel