On 26/10/10 10:18 PM, "ext Quim Gil" <[email protected]> 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. >> fp >> 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. > > 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. My take on this as a Nokia MeeGo architect is that we need hardfp. That is where the market is going: Harmattan and linaro are already in that train. IMO, we should start building softfp and hardfp for a 6 months grace period. Once 1.2 is out we should drop softfp. -sakari > > -- > Quim > > > > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
