On 29 August 2012 05:08, Serghei Amelian <serghei@...> wrote: > On Wednesday 29 August 2012 04:28:54 Timothy Pearson wrote: >> > I suspect the KDE3 and Trinity camps could work together --- but the >> > proverbial olive branch is to strip the TQ interface from Trinity. >> >> From a technical perspective this would be a MAJOR, if not FATAL, step >> backward. Once this is done we would relegate ourselves permanently to >> the back waters of desktop environments, solely because we will NEVER be >> able to be fully compatible with (or use internally) Qt4, Qt5, or any >> future Qt products. Keep in mind that Qt4+ -based programs make up a >> large chunk of the halfway-decent new applications being generated for >> Linux, and that lack of proper integration between Qt4/TDE would likely >> prevent anyone from even trying TDE, let alone using it on a daily basis. > > I don't understand this obsession for Qt4+ and KDE4. KDE4 is every time a step > behind GNOME. For this reason I preffer to patch a little the Qt3 to support > glib mainloop and then I will develop various applications based on excellent > libraries provided by GNOME community. Moreover, glib integration is not > broke Qt3 API, so I don't need to patch any of older KDE3 apps. > > >> If anything I would propose the opposite, that the KDE:KDE3 developers >> adopt the minor object renaming that is required to fix the Qt4 >> compatibility problem and come work with us. While the original >> tqtinterface was difficult to use and undocumented, the new TQt layer is >> nearly transparent and the oly visible change is the use of TQ* objects >> instead of Q* objects. I routinely convert TQt3 code to Qt3 code using >> nothing but find+replace ("TQ"-->"Q" and "ntq"-->"q"), so the changes are >> not drastic. > > Minor hack or no, it is ugly. Replacing strings automatically introduces a > risk to make unwanted changes (which sometimes are translated in strange and > hard to hunt bugs). > > In any case, KDE3 will not dissapear so soon, my business is running on top of > KDE3, so i'm forced to maintain it :) > > -- > Serghei > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@... > For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@... > Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ > Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting > A couple of thoughts here, 1. Bugs. Yes there are still bugs in this software, I do not think there is any "drowning" going on. Yes with the hard work of Darrell, Slavek and David we have seen many any many of these small to medium bugs be resolved. Meanwhile Tim has taken on serious bugs. Users are reporting problems, but for every user that reports problems there is anothre user that is not having any problems. 2. HAL.... Darrell you said you think people are leaving trinity because of HAL? Users do not give a flying fark about HAL or what it is. I suspect few of them understand or even have knowledge of it's existance. What is imperative is that no matter what backend is used, the functionality is the same and the transistion is seamless. I say push a SRU, a bug fix release. That will help spark interest, and help users get the updates they need. Calvin