On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:53 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Same question for KDE - someone writes a tool for their group based > > on some KDE libraries, doesn't expect an update to come along and do > > a major KDE version bump and break some interface the tool relied > > on... > > KDE would generally consider it a bug if that happened (API compat > broken by a non-major* update), unless it was an interface that already > had a big "BC/SC not guaranteed" warning label. > > (* major = e.g. KDE3 -> KDE4) > > There may be situations in which such a break would be done anyway, but > there would have to be a strong argument why such change is so critical > as to warrant a compatibility break. It seems to happen rather a lot for that to be the case, though maybe the situation I'm most familiar with (KDE 4.0 -> 4.1 -> 4.2) is an unusual situation. I was watching KDE quite closely in MDV at that point, as quite a lot of features that people expected from 3.x were missing, and I remember, for instance, that someone was trying to get kmilo (for multimedia keys) working on 4.x, they had to port it to 4.0, then port it to 4.1, then to 4.2... as I said, I suppose this could just be because 4.0 didn't quite have everything settled down yet so some major changes still had to be made for 4.1 / 4.2. I'm not enough of an expert on KDE to be sure. But we're getting bogged down in specifics again :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
