Angus Leeming wrote: > Personally, I'm sold on the "qt3 is redundant" argument. If it's a hassle, > kill it. However, I also buy into JMarc's complaints that there has been too > much noise from the "cry wolf" brigade. The strength of your argument is > reduced by the manner and the frequency of your shouting.
Just complaining about the "crying wolfs" is not enough, only arguments count. But each change has it risk, and I understand that someone people think some changes are too risky, because each decision could be wrong. But what could be wrong in removing qt3? When we release 1.5 with qt4, could someone imagine we release 1.5 also with qt3, who will do it? Could you imagine that we will switch back to qt3 because we will find out that qt4 doesn't fit our needs? The only advantage I could see in supporting qt3 until 1.5 is out is the impact on 1.4. How does qt3 in trunk help the 1.4 branch? Because we don't know how long it will take until we ship 1.5 we maybe have a long time to support 1.4, and it is eventually simpler to support 1.4 (bug fixes and small feature updates) with qt3 in trunk. But I'm not sure about this point. Peter
