KDevelop 1.3 release

Ralf Nolden nolden at kde.org
Tue Nov 21 19:29:47 UTC 2000

Sandy Meier wrote:
> On Montag, 20. November 2000 17:19, you wrote:
> > Licence? (L)GPL-based KDevelop can use a commercial Qt Windows version for
> > free?
> > ??? I _very_ _doubt_ that it is done in 4 weeks...
> Yes, KDevelop 1.3 has an _old_ code base and porting would be very difficult.
> Maybe Bernd can share some experiences?
> > I vote for stopping the development at KDevelop-1.x. IMO the best is we
> > finish the 1.3 features only.
> I absolutely agree!! It's ok if someone want's to port KDevelop1.3 to other
> platforms: KDE2,MS Windows or maybe OS/2, but I think we have only a few
> resources and in my opionion we shouldn't waste it.
> Everyone who have ever coded for KDevelop1.1 and later knows that we have
> reached a point where KDevelop1.x isn't maintainable anymore. Please accept
> this.
> In my opinion we should concentrate our effort on KDevelop2. (maybe with the
> help of some companies)
Ok, to complete the confusion ....

ahhh, oh, no, to finish this discussion ;) let´s make 1.3 ready. There
are still some things to do like last update of the template´s admin dir
with the one in the kde cvs, Walter wanted to review the cpp and c
templates as he told me in munich and the integration of the KDE 2
development book. We could manage this in the next two weeks and than
it´s 1.3 time. After that, if someone or anyone is interested to port,
let them do it. Whoever wants to help, help, but in any case develop on
KDevelop 2.0 as said. My suggestion was only a *suggestion* ;) not a
top-priority question; I know as well as the others that 1.3 isn´t
maintainable for what we have in store for 2.0, but it would make a good
product for KDE 2 as well and would be worth the porting work if it can
be done in a couple of week with external help. Just if the porting is
done, we should be open on questions to architecture if there is trouble
porting some things, not more.

I think that is ok now and a definete point where we can all agree;
those who would like to have a port and those who´d like to see only
work done on 2.0. My *personal* reason for agreeing to even help with a
port is that I think we have still so much to do on 2.0 that a quick and
dirty 1.3 for KDE 2 is reachable and would make sense up until we are
ready with 2.0 in spring/summer 2001. And we all know that 2.0 will not
have the same quality on it´s first release that 1.3 has; so it would be
worth it for the user´s side who likes the 1.3 series just barely
because of it´s handling.

Peace now everybody ? ;)

The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Oscar Wilde

Ralf Nolden

The KDevelop Project

nolden at kde.org
rnolden at kdevelop.org

to unsubscribe from this list send an email to kdevelop-devel-request at kdevelop.org with the following body:
unsubscribe »your-email-address«

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list