On Friday 02 December 2011, Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > I am ok with this at the current stage. Porting should be careful, you > know - Kexi 1.x on Qt 3 was way more stable, and in Qt 4 version we > have almost no extra complicated features. How about discussing about > a deadline for removal of Qt3Support? I propose Did it occured to you that using deprecated(/unsupported) API is not the best road to stability ?
> This is just Qt 5.0. Many devs are afraid of releasing > software using x.0 version of a new library, so that could add up to > the delay. Well there is not much difference in Qt 5.0 and what would have been Qt 4.9, just they move some code around, axe some libraries in two. So I would expect the adoption rate of Qt 5.0 to be very quick, and since it will be a blaze to compile application that don't use API-that-are-deprecated-since-5-or-more- years-ago, then I expect most distribution to want to simplify their life and be quick to drop Qt 4.8. Which means, that supporting Qt 5.0 when it goes out will be a must. > as said before I see no features in Qt 5 that justifies abandoning support > for older Qt 4-oriented distros. This is totally unrelated. Compiling with Qt5 does not prevent us to also support Qt4. Since both are almost source compatible, maybe a few #ifdef in some places, and we are done. However, "not supporting Qt5" is suicidal, and frankly, since most calligra applications do not require QT3SUPPORT, most of them are ready, meaning that it is very likely that in recent distributions Calligra/Qt5 will be used instead of Calligra/Qt4, with or without Kexi. -- Cyrille Berger Skott _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
