Arne Schmitz wrote: > Am Montag, 6. November 2006 07:42 schrieb Philipp Kolmann: >> On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:02:10AM +0200, Eugene Paskevich wrote: >>>> I'm leaning towards Qt4 only, but I'd like to here what the rest of you >>>> think. >>> Which is >>> not the case with Slack for example. So at the moment my vote goes for >>> ifdefs. >> Well I think we should go for a qt4 only plugin. KDE4 will make qt4 >> standard. So I think that this well be sometime next year. So it is wise to >> be prepared. > > Yes, exactly. I also think it is wise to switch to Qt4, so we will be > compatible with KDE4. I've ported a small app to Qt4 last week, and there are > quite a lot of usually small differences between Qt3 and 4. But it is all > manageable.
I second that. Think in terms of distributions: Instead of keeping the
qt3-stuff, we should evolve with the environment and support qt4 only.
Branching allows to develop the qt4-plugin seperately and, when it is
ready, it can be integrated and the version be tagged as the first
qt4-version.
We could keep a qt3-branch with some backports of bugfixes, if needed,
but we should not stick to a framework which will be replaced.
Stefan
--
____
/ \
/ ^ ^ \ Stefan Haun
I \/ I [EMAIL PROTECTED]
II II http://www.tuxathome.de
II II
I /\/\ I
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
