About what KDevelop-2.1 will be (was: Re: bug or feature ?)

[F@lk Brettschneider]

Morjen Morjen,

Roland Krause wrote:
> 
> --- "F at lk Brettschneider" <gigafalk at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > But I think we should also put the Kate integration into the
> > KDevelop-2.1 release bundled with KDE-3. We would have a second new
> > killer feature beside the cross-compiling. Time is enough, I don't
> > expect KDE3 before March.
> 
> That is definitely enough time to get it stable, but it needs testing
> and lots of that.
> 
> > WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? (Especially, the most guilty people:
> > Ralf?
> > Roland?)
> 
> Ralf, come forward on this, my opinion on it is known. Although merging
> gives me the opportunity to implement a bunch of other things and clean
> up the code somewhat. So, under the circumstances that we are looking
> at March for the release of KDE-3, I'd say lets merge the kate part
> KDE_2_2_BRANCH and stabilize it.
> 
> >
> > Technically, it means to keep KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH synchronized with
> > KDE_2_2_BRANCH which isn't hard to do says Roland.
> 
> There are two possibilities,
> 
> 1 Merge the KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH down into the KDE_2_2_BRANCH
KDE_2_2_BRANCH is a bugfix branch of KDE-2. All the people wanting
better packages for KDE2 updates here. So there's no sense in merging in
KDE3 stuff.

> 2 Keep the KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH synchronized with the KDE_2_2_BRANCH
That's what we should do.

> 
> these are different things.
> 
> > We are also able
> > to
> > tag the 2.1 in a normal way on KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH. Of course
> > KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH is only thought to be able to work with KDE3
> > though.
> 
> At one point, KDevelop will focus on KDE-3 only, backwards
> compaitiblity can then be dropped. This may be the point to switch from
> option 2 to 1.
> 
> >
> > Exa, you could decide to put the indention into Kate.
> >
> But talk to the kate developer first! Kate is a bit different and I
> believe in kate all this is better done with a plugin and some
> scripting anyway.
> 
> Another option, maybe a friendly fork is at this point not avoidable
> any longer. This would give gideon the chance to come forward and
> release with KDE-3.
I don't see a reason for a CVS separation.
In the end they would move back to cvs module "kdevelop" as KDevelop-3.0
anyway.

Gideon-0.4 can be released for KDE-3.0.0 by tagging the cvs main trunk
with GIDEON_0_4 or whatever, KDevelop-2.1 can be released for KDE-3.0.0
by tagging the KDEVELOP_2_BRANCH with the KDEVELOP_2_1 release tag.

Ciao,F at lk

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com