On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Matt Williams <li...@milliams.com> wrote: > On 31 October 2010 11:53, John Tapsell <johnf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 31 October 2010 11:33, Mark Kretschmann <kretschm...@kde.org> wrote: >>> Hey all, >>> >>> after reading the whole thread that started with Chani's mail ("why >>> kdelibs?"), I think the noise level has become a bit too much there. >>> Cornelius had proposed this rather daring idea: >>> >>> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=128842761708404&w=2 >> >> >> Sounds great. This should probably be done by picking a specific >> technology in KDE, and adapting it and merging it to work in Qt. >> >> A wonderful place to start would be kioslaves imho. This is something >> which has a real advantage, is relatively self-contained, and would >> provide a big advantage. Possibly it needs to be merged more with the >> Qt API though. > > So, if we decided that we wanted to merge KIO slaves into Qt, what > would the steps we go through be? If we're going to be doing this with > a number of classes we need to have a process which ensures that the > code is Qute enough, KDE still compiles against it (with minimal/no > code changes) etc. > > Obviously things like this will be BIC? Even with wrapper classes in > KDE? So I guess we can't just jump and do this for KDE 4.6 -- it's > going to force us into taking some very big steps like jumping to KDE5 > or at least boosting the soversion of the libs.
Yes. If we would indeed go ahead with this plan, this would (as Cornelius noted too) be a very big change. It's not something you could do over night. We're looking here at a time span of one year or more, is my guess. So that would probably mean Qt 5 / KDE 5. -- Mark Kretschmann Amarok Developer, Software Engineer at KO GmbH Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe http://amarok.kde.org - http://www.fsfe.org - http://www.kogmbh.com