On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 14:25:02 Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Wednesday, September 07, 2011 02:11:11 AM Michael Pyne wrote: > > I really think the underlying concern is less about that per se but is > > instead two-pronged: > ... > > > 2) Porting KClasses to functionally equivalent QClasses, but losing the > > ability to modify those KClasses as needed for the Desktop. > > This can still be done once our stuff has gone into the QClasses. It is > "just" that we then depend on the next release of the library which > contains that QClass.
The problem isn't with the per se, but with the fact that for however close KDE is to the Qt upstream, we don't *control* those classes. The Qt Project's committers would still be free to reject a change required by KDE (and the long-time existence of KDE patches against qt-copy and Qt in gitorious was testament to that). Regards, - Michael Pyne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
