On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 10:16 +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit : > >>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Abdelrazak> I see that you and Angus have a lot of Qt4 expertise. It > > Abdelrazak> would be a pity for LyX to loose that IMO. Lars, > > Abdelrazak> Jean-Marc, when do you think it would be possible to allow > > Abdelrazak> me to commit what I have done so far? The day after 1.4.0? > > > > I think it will be possible as soon as BRANCH_1_4_X is created, since > > this is IMO 1.5 only. > > Hum... It's not that I am jealous but the GTK frontend does not appear > complete and it ships with 1.4.x already. I agree that it is too late > for 1.4.0 but if we agree that qt2 and qt4 frontends would have to be > supported at the same time, why not ship both? The qt2 one would of > course be the default and qt4 would be marked as "experimental" and > "source only". I mean, IIRC, this was what the Toolkit independence > project was all about, wasn't it? > That being said, if you say that 1.5 would appear in 6 months from now, > there is of course no reason to ship with 1.4.x ;-). If you say that 1.5 > would completely switch to qt4, this is also another reason to wait. > > What I am saying above depends of course on the quality of my code. You > are perfectly entitled to reject it. > > Abdel. > > > > > It is great to have a wroking qt4 frontend. > > > > JMarc
Hmmm, wasn't the rule that the freeze doesn't touch stuff that is not operational, like the gtk front-end, provided it doesn't touch working stuff/the core? Then I think even conservative policy would allow the qt4 front-end in for 1.4.x, x > 0. - Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
