>>From: Arjan van de Ven [[email protected]] >>Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:24 PM >On 10/26/2010 12:18 PM, Quim Gil wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 23:52 +0200, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: >> This is why I was wondering why we're not using hardfp *now* for 1.1.0. >> >> We shouldn't be breaking binary compatibility. >> >> We shouldn't be softp either. >> Just reminding the obvious, but as for today there is no major MeeGo >> products in the market, no AppUp for MeeGo, no Ovi for MeeGo, no Extras >> for MeeGo. Even the MeeGo SDK itself is in its first iterations. >> >which will change once we release 1.1.
I fully argee with Quim here, we have to act on this now, when the installed base does not exist. >> I see Arjan's point made from an architecture consistency point of view >> - but from a marketing point of view 1.2 and following releases will be >> a lot more used and scrutinized than 1.1.x releases. If this soft-hard >> break is unavoidable then it seems that now it will create a lot less >> hassle than in 6 months or later. > >based on the discussion here... the technology is at least several >months away. > >and breaking compatibility in an upgrade is even worse than breaking it >n a new release... >.... really. We need to address those concerns by talking bout this openly. According to best experts this will take some time, so unfortunatelly it seems that we will have 2 ARM architecture builds towards 1.2, and we can only make final judgement when we know that hardfp will work as intended. Br, //Harri _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
