Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Mar 2008 22:59 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 304964
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-07-13
There was no debacle, or lesson to be learned. KDE4 required some significant tear-down / rebuild of KDE3. That took some time, and is still partially a work in progress. KDE 4.1 was targeted for release approximately 6 months after 4.0, before 4.0 was even released.
KDE has always had an incremental update policy between major versions; changes get pushed into svn, and on a regular basis they are tagged for a point release.
KDE and Gnome cannot necessarily work on the same type of rigid release structure. KDE is based primarily on Qt, whereas Gnome is based on Gtk and a collection of supporting libraries, all of which have their own roadmaps. Qt4 introduced enough changes that warranted a rebuild of KDE to take advantage of, Gtk et al. do not evolve in the same cycle, so any decision for a reworking of Gnome will be based on an intersection of different projects reaching a certain point.
That's not to say one method is better than the other, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, as KDE 4.0 underscored. Simply saying that you cannot arbitrarily use the same yardstick to evaluate development cycles.