On Friday 08 September 2006 02:48, Jim Bublitz wrote: > I'm completely in favor of synching KDE and PyKDE
:-) > Seriously - 2 or 3 maintainers splitting up module responsibilities would > probably do it with decent communication and source control. I'm perfectly > willing to provide help. I don't wanna be the boss though - I'm too > unreliable. The good thing about PyKDE is that once the base code is in place, it doesn't take much coordination to keep it maintained. A small group of people keeping an eye on PyKDE and the especially on developments in kdelibs around freeze time, should be sufficent. Issues, breakage, bugs or new APIs can be reported and coordinated on the mailing list (and via bugs.kde.org). > It's unlikely that you can maintain a system which a) stays in sync with KDE > and b) stays at the cutting edge of sip/PyQt, but I don't see why that would > be critical - certainly the distributors are always a few revs behind, and > people who need the cutting edge can still roll their own, especially if > PyKDE is up-to-date with KDE.. There has always been a stable configuration > that's usable, if not completely up-to-date with the latest sip changes. What we want to be able to tell users and 3rd party developers is that a KDE 4.0 application written in Python will work fine on any 4.0+ version of KDE, just like how it is with C++ apps. By just work fine, I mean that binary packages containing SIP wrapped C++ classes and normal Python code should stay working between versions. This seems to require that SIP and libsip maintain BC during the KDE 4 series. I'd like to see mixed language development supported. Is this realistic? or should no BC guarantees be given? Phil, what are your thoughts about SIP binary compatibiity in the future? The way that Python's module C API likes to evolve between releases also complicates the picture... > My biggest wish is that more people would learn to use sip. It's not really > very hard (I'm exhibit A), and the benefits of spreading that knowledge > would > eventually extend far beyond PyKDE, besides making PyKDE more maintainable > by > others. Supporting mixed development would make using sip a lot more attractive, and hence spread the knowledge. (You're right though, it is really not that hard to understand). > And I agree that the use of PyKDE for third party applications is a serious > support consideration - that concerns me more than staying in sync with KDE. can you elaborate? cheers, -- Simon Edwards | KDE-NL, Guidance tools, Guarddog Firewall [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.simonzone.com/software/ Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice." _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list PyKDE@mats.imk.fraunhofer.de http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde
