Assets: Does it need to be transparent?

[Jonathan Greig]

I say break the compatibility. Every time I've used a new alpha, it's
broken something in my code. If backwards compatibility is that much of a
concern, BogDan, is it possible that a ministro 3 would solve the issue?
That in itself poses another dilemma in that there are now more than one
version of ministro. I would think naming it ministro alpha/ministro beta
would be better and save just 'ministro' for the real release. It would
become obvious to both user and developer what state the app/project is in
and then they may use at their discretion.

- Swyped from my droid.

On Apr 2, 2012 6:55 AM, "BogDan" <bog_dan_ro at yahoo.com> wrote:



Hi,

   AFAIK there are just a few apps, most of them are announced on
android-qt mailing list, just search for Ministro or Necessitas on market.

  I also know that I warn the people many times about the alpha state of
Necessitas and I should don't care too much about them but ... I care !


  If we can support all this apps with a little effort (there are just a
few lines of code to make it backward compatible) , IMHO we should do it !
Because all these apps will stop working immediately after Ministro will
update Qt libs, and even the developers will update the code, these apps
will not work using alpha3 libs, this means frustrated users, frustrated
developers and bad reviews ...


All of you might think I'm crazy, maybe I am ...  :)

Cheers,
BogDan.

>________________________________
> From: Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com>
>To: necessitas-devel at kde.org
>Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 1:40 PM

>Subject: Re: Assets: Does it need to be transparent?
>
>

>My 2 cents, but I obviously agree that, Necessitas still being alpha, back
compatibility shouldn't ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/necessitas-devel/attachments/20120402/6faa18f5/attachment.html>