amantia at kde.org
Tue Jul 12 08:05:04 UTC 2005
On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:28, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 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*
> > important.
> 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.
It is required. It is not required between 3.x and 4.x.
> However, I cannot
> find specific policies on developer.kde.org.
Well, I'm sure there is one there:
Quoting: "In the KDE project, we will provide binary compatibility
within the life-span of a major release."
Quanta Plus developer - http://quanta.kdewebdev.org
K Desktop Environment - http://www.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the KDevelop-devel