On Sunday, October 31, 2010, Torsten Rahn wrote: > * I think a good start would be if we defined better acceptance criteria > for stuff that gets accepted into kdelibs. > > Right now I have the impression that basically everything gets in as long > as it could possibly have a slight benefit in some situations.
while we may be able to find some cases of this happening, this is not the general case. or put another way, if you want ot make this assertion please provide support for it, so that we know we're basing decisions on realistic foundations. > In this light I think the 80% rule for Qt is a pretty good thing - at least > for Qt's core: It keeps the core on diet and makes it still which leaves everyone else needing a 3rd party library to avoid reimplementing not-as-common-but-still-common code. those needs don't evaporate if kdelibs would stop providing them. > - Other stuff is largely tied to the paradigm of a desktop. Which brings > me to the thought: Let's start at what we good at: Let's start creating > and maintaining a "Qt Desktop" module which would provide building blocks > that are specific to the "classical" desktop. I guess that could be "our" > initial sweet spot which could complement the "Qt Mobility" module > nicely. what would be in such a Destop module, exactly? file dialog, print dialog, mouse-centric widgets, ..? -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
