Wrapping up about KI18n and UIC

[Kevin Ottens]

On Monday 18 November 2013 12:49:39 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> Stephen Kelly wrote:
> >> It'd need to be released quite a bit before us to
> >> be something we can consider as a dependency. At that point I'm
> >> considering having 2.8.12 as dependency for the release (so that it got
> >> time to spread, sounds less likely with CMake 3).
> > 
> > I don't understand. Why is CMake 3 not likely to spread?
> 
> My point here was that suggesting with a wink and a nudge that CMake 3.0.0
> is highly likely to have lots of incompatibilities (as I guessed you were
> doing?) and therefore not spread is not appropriate.

Not at all what I was doing. :-)
 
> You have enough credibility that people would believe it and spread it, but
> it is not true. That's not how backward compatibility works in CMake.

I know, I was more thinking about the natural spreading of new version in 
distros. The time they package stuff and that ends up in released versions.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- 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-frameworks-devel/attachments/20131118/2c178e3f/attachment.sig>