Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 12:02 PM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg
>> <julius.schwartzenberg@...>  wrote:
>>> Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>>>> Second, what, if any, kinds of bugs might result from using Qt::
>>>>> rather
>>>>> than TQt::?
>>>>
>>>> None really--it's a readability issue only.
>>>
>>> Just a question out of interest. Wouldn't keeping Qt:: instead of using
>>> TQt:: make source compatibility with other KDE3 forks easier (regarding
>>> patches and so on)?
> 
> I just think it's a bit silly that there are multiple KDE3 forks. I
> don't see how our project has any incentive to keep our code the same.
> Since the changes are nominal, a quick search and replace will probably
> make it usable with other kde3 versions.

One of the reasons behind the multiple forks is the TQt VS Qt issue.
That's why it is important to have a good motivation and explanation
around this. Especially if you consider multiple forks silly and you
want to work towards more unification.

I understand that TQt inside the Trinity source was part of an approach
that is replaced partly now by another approach on the library side. I
hope Timothy can be a bit more clear about all the details.

At one point there was the question of compiling Trinity code against
either Qt3 or Qt4 with TQt. Now there seems to be the approach to
combine Qt3 and Qt4 usage in a single application (but I also see TQt
mentioned then). Right now it has become a bit unclear for most people
which things serve exactly which purpose. Maybe there is also already
some documentation on this that I'm overlooking?

Julius