On Saturday 26 April 2014 05:28:18 Inge Wallin wrote: > But mostly I think that an LTS release should be about stability. This is > not something you get immediately after you port to a new framework and a > new toolkit at the same time. > > I think we should do a 4.15 and at the same time do as much work as possible > to port over to Qt5/KF5. But to think that the result of that effort is > worthy of a LTS release is to fool ourselves. >
Hi, I do not think that porting to KF5/Qt5 does block a LTS in any way, since porting to KF5/Qt5 is a task that has to be done in parallel to the Qt4 development branches. So any (possibly) disruptive changes coming from the KF5 port do not effect the Qt4 version, i.e. the 4.14 release. IMHO the advantage by having a LTS release, and this is the main reason I am in favor of this idea, is to softly poke ourselves to start porting to KF5 soon. Since I do not believe that it is a feasible way to release arbitrary subsets of applications in the future, but still releasing at least on a per-module basis (like everything of KDE Edu, all KDE Games, etc.), modules as a whole must be ported and ready at a specific point in time to release them based on KF5. For the applications I am currently working on, which is Rocs and Artikulate, for the Qt4 versions I do not see any major features I will implement there (which means they are already in a de-facto LTS mode.) The reason behind is that the KF5/Qt5 porting creates quite disruptive changes (QtQuick1 to QtQuick2; port away from QGraphicsScene). Thus any new feature merges from the Qt4 branches are very painfull. Cheers, Andreas
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
