John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:10:08PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote: > > > Decide on your own what that means for Qt3... > > One small note: if qt3 dies (and the development cost does seem quite > onerous), then the first 1.5.0 release should have clear pointers and > instructions on how to get qt4 for common platforms. Aside from > non-bleeding-edge Linux distributions, there's also the BSDs and Solaris > to consider.
Sane points, John. Personally, I'm sold on the "qt3 is redundant" argument. If it's a hassle, kill it. However, I also buy into JMarc's complaints that there has been too much noise from the "cry wolf" brigade. The strength of your argument is reduced by the manner and the frequency of your shouting. Angus