ghost at cs.msu.su
Tue Jul 12 07:29:08 UTC 2005
On Monday 11 July 2005 21:34, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Monday 11 July 2005 17:32, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On Monday 11 July 2005 18:29, Andras Mantia wrote:
> > > On Monday 11 July 2005 17:15, Amilcar do Carmo Lucas wrote:
> > > > After the release then we can think about BC again.
> > >
> > > But isn't this about KDevelop inside KDE 3.4, which should be BC
> > > with the one from 3.3?
> > FWIW, I've added *non-virtual* member, so BC should not matter at
> > all, IIRC.
> I saw it afterwards, I was just raising my voice that BC is *still*
Is it important for KDE 3.4 branch, or for KDevelop trunk as well. I assumed
that trunk will eventually become KDE 3.5, and that binary compatibility
between 3.4 and 3.5 is not required. However, I cannot find specific policies
More information about the KDevelop-devel