Talk:Development/Tutorials/KDE4 Porting Guide: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Talk:Development/Tutorials/Porting moved to Talk:Development/Tutorials/KDE4 Porting Guide: as discussed) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== KDE4PORTING.html == | |||
Hi Milliams, | Hi Milliams, | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
: (assuming you mean KDE4PORTING.html) Do we have two places (libs+wiki) we have to sync then? --[[User:Dhaumann|Dhaumann]] 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET) | : (assuming you mean KDE4PORTING.html) Do we have two places (libs+wiki) we have to sync then? --[[User:Dhaumann|Dhaumann]] 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET) | ||
---- | :: personally i think it makes sense to leave the KDE4PORTING.html in svn for now. people know where it is and it's convenient to edit it there while things are still in flux. we can perhaps bring it over once the API has more or less frozen and changes aren't made so often. --[[User:Aseigo|Aseigo]] 10:09, 15 January 2007 (CET) | ||
:::I'd agree with Aaron here. It saves duplication of information while it's very much in flux. Once the API is stable, this would definitely be the best place for the information though. The main reason I started this page was because spoke to someone on IRC who wanted to port a KDE3 application but couldn't find a decent source on information on the subject. For now, this page will simply be a portal to the various sources of information around. --[[User:Milliams|milliams]] 16:42, 15 January 2007 (CET) | |||
== Rename == | |||
RFC: Rename to "KDE4 Porting Guide"? :-) --[[User:Dhaumann|Dhaumann]] 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET) | RFC: Rename to "KDE4 Porting Guide"? :-) --[[User:Dhaumann|Dhaumann]] 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET) | ||
:I agree, that would be a much more descriptive title which makes the point of the page more immediately clear. To be honest, I'm not even entirely convinced that this page should be under "Tutorials". It's simply that that was the best place I could find for it. --[[User:Milliams|milliams]] 16:42, 15 January 2007 (CET) | |||
:: +1 --[[User:Aseigo|Aseigo]] 19:14, 31 January 2007 (CET) | |||
::Thinking more about it, this document could even go to [[Development/Architecture]]. It's not a "Design Document", but it reflects the logical consequences of our architectural changes. This doc should as already mentioned above be short for now. Maybe we can integrate parts of the [http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/from-kde-3-to-kde-4-what-we-will-leave-behind/ table of this blog]. Thoughts? --[[User:Dhaumann|Dhaumann]] 16:27, 1 February 2007 (CET) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:07, 24 February 2007
KDE4PORTING.html
Hi Milliams,
Please consider to migrate the KDE4PORTING.txt file from kdelibs here, too. --Danimo 09:28, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- (assuming you mean KDE4PORTING.html) Do we have two places (libs+wiki) we have to sync then? --Dhaumann 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- personally i think it makes sense to leave the KDE4PORTING.html in svn for now. people know where it is and it's convenient to edit it there while things are still in flux. we can perhaps bring it over once the API has more or less frozen and changes aren't made so often. --Aseigo 10:09, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- I'd agree with Aaron here. It saves duplication of information while it's very much in flux. Once the API is stable, this would definitely be the best place for the information though. The main reason I started this page was because spoke to someone on IRC who wanted to port a KDE3 application but couldn't find a decent source on information on the subject. For now, this page will simply be a portal to the various sources of information around. --milliams 16:42, 15 January 2007 (CET)
Rename
RFC: Rename to "KDE4 Porting Guide"? :-) --Dhaumann 10:02, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- I agree, that would be a much more descriptive title which makes the point of the page more immediately clear. To be honest, I'm not even entirely convinced that this page should be under "Tutorials". It's simply that that was the best place I could find for it. --milliams 16:42, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- +1 --Aseigo 19:14, 31 January 2007 (CET)
- Thinking more about it, this document could even go to Development/Architecture. It's not a "Design Document", but it reflects the logical consequences of our architectural changes. This doc should as already mentioned above be short for now. Maybe we can integrate parts of the table of this blog. Thoughts? --Dhaumann 16:27, 1 February 2007 (CET)