What's missing for 4.0

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 17.09.09 19:02:18, Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM, David Nolden <zwabel at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Once again, I think it would be good to re-evaluate what features we need to
> > implement before we can release KDevelop 4.0.
> [...]
> > What's your list?
> 
> As a user who has recently contributed one or two patches, my
> impression is that the most important thing is to get a stable, i.e.
> non-crashing release out. Oh, and fix the website (it's horrible,
> seriously).

Same problem as anywhere else: Nobody wants to do it and none of us is
good enough at web-design. However IMHO the current page is already a
vast improvement over the one we had last year around this time.
 
> 1. The debugger is essentially unusable, even for local debugging (and
> I really need remote debugging facilities). I realize that that's
> being worked on.

I'm not sure wether remote debugging will make it into 4.0.
 
> 3. I'm not particularly happy with VCS integration. Not that there are
> particular bugs, it's just the UI I have discovered so far just seems
> wrong for my Git workflow. To be honest, I haven't investigated this a
> lot and just sticked to the CLI after a very brief look. This is
> definitely not something that should delay a 4.0 release.

It won't, unless there's a wonder and someone wants to maintain it for
the next 2 years it'll be moved to playground soonish.

> 4. Build system integration is problematic. I blame this on Mesa's
> crazy Makefile system, and so far I've been able to reasonably work
> around it using configuration options and so on. Again, this is
> definitely not something that should delay a 4.0 release.

Custom Makefile's are basically unsupported. We do fetch the targets
from them, but nothing else is possible with them. The C++ support is
also relatively good at finding out the needed include-dirs via its
includepathresolver.

This won't change for 4.0 

> 5. Some C-style constructs still seem to be incompletely supported in
> the parser/duchain. In particular, struct initializers don't work
> correctly. That's not exactly critical though, and it's something I
> might work on if I find the time.

You, this is a C++ IDE and we have a C++ parser, so some C features will
never be recognized in KDevelop (unless someone writes a pure-C plugin).

Andreas

-- 
Snow Day -- stay home.