some work and api design on plasma2

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Thursday 19 July 2012 20:35:51 Marco Martin wrote:
> but the most important thing is that kf5 is kinda the last chance for big
> incompatime changes, at least for a long while.
do we need a libplasma in KF 5.0? Would it be a huge issue to say libplasma is 
split out of frameworks but not released as part of 5.0, but will enter in 5.1 
or 5.2. Or having a split-out libplasma API compatible might be a quite nice 
thing in fact for 3rd-party applications using Plasma and don't want to do 
heavy porting. Remember KF 5 should be easy to port to, right ;-)

IIRC libplasma had not been part of KDElibs 4.0 either, so I personally see no 
issue with having a libplasma1 as part of KF 5.0 and later on add a libplasma 
2 to 5.1 or 5.2. The disadvantage would be that the namespace would have to be 
changed from Plasma to Plasma2, but that can also be considered as an 
advantage...

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20120719/f5e4711b/attachment.sig>