KDevelop UI

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 19.07.07 23:04:41, Roberto Raggi wrote:
> Il giorno 19/lug/07, alle ore 22:02, Andreas Pakulat ha scritto:
> I'm not talking about sublime, I'm talking about KDevelop as project.  
> Well, the *big* problem is you have a lot of cool stuff, interesting  
> features, amazing design patterns, a very modern framework *but* when  
> you start KDevelop4 the only thing you see is a top level widget  
> (400x400 pixels) with a combo box and an iPod-like file browser. You  
> look at it and you say what the hell is this thing!? :-) if you don't  
> have time to look at the code you will never know that KDevelop4 is  
> more than a top level widget and a combo box. A lot of developers I  
> know are 100% sure that KDevelop 4 is a dead project and that is so  
> depressing.

Well, so far nobody except Alex worked on Ui (which is not good, but
well everybody gets to choose his pet peeve). However we do try to blog
about cool features that kdevelop has and there quite some blogs around.

I'm not sure how one should communicate the great framework through the
user interface. I know a larger announcement about the kdevplatform is
needed, but I don't know yet for sure where to do that. Also we agreed
that its not yet time for it, as kdevplatform still changes a lot.

> > Why not? Why has Designer dockwidgets then ;)
> 
> this is a very long story :-) I added dock widgets later, customers  
> feedback ;) but as you know the default UI in Designer is not using  
> dock widgets and workspaces

Ooops, I thought that the first Qt4 designer I started used
dockwidget-mode but in fact qt4.3 designer does use the top-level-mode.

> but I still like dock widgets. It's just  that I like other things too

Hehe.

> > Oh and I forgot X11 license :)
> 
> See? no problem. MIT/X11is the license that you are using in qmake.g  
> and I'm using in ideal, kdev-pg (not in the application but in the  
> SDK kdevelop-pg/include) and the r++ preprocessor

Well, now I'm confused. That page lists X11 and MIT separately and the
text it shows for both in fact is different. And the license of qmake.g
is yet another as it lacks the last paragraph of the X11 license listed
on the licensing page.

I guess I should add: I don't really care that much about licensing,
because all that legal stuff is way beyond me. I didn't even notice that
the license use in all those .g files is not the GPL.

Andreas, who's going to change the qmake.g license to GPL to have the
same on all parser files

-- 
Everything will be just tickety-boo today.