User talk:Jstaniek: Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
**I do not recommend making redundant copies of http://www.kdelibs.com. The content there is under heavy development now. I won't be able to maintain another wiki (I already have FOUR :) ). '''We can make a move (not a copy) to kdelibs once KDE4 buildsystem is stable.''' Why? Because many steps are common and we want to share them between targets. For now the instructions are even splitted between msvc and mingw compilers, what's not optimal for maintenance. <br>'''According to my vision: eventually, kdelibs.com will be more ISVs-oriented while *.kde.org stays oriented at the community in general.''' -- [[User:Jstaniek|jstaniek]] 17:27, 11 January 2007 (CET) | **I do not recommend making redundant copies of http://www.kdelibs.com. The content there is under heavy development now. I won't be able to maintain another wiki (I already have FOUR :) ). '''We can make a move (not a copy) to kdelibs once KDE4 buildsystem is stable.''' Why? Because many steps are common and we want to share them between targets. For now the instructions are even splitted between msvc and mingw compilers, what's not optimal for maintenance. <br>'''According to my vision: eventually, kdelibs.com will be more ISVs-oriented while *.kde.org stays oriented at the community in general.''' -- [[User:Jstaniek|jstaniek]] 17:27, 11 January 2007 (CET) | ||
*** Moving once its settled in sounds good. As long as at some point we have all our information in one place we should be good. The issue of kdelibs.com becoming an ISV portal raises a question with regards to the ISV section on this website. We don't need two of them IMHO, it'll only split resources and give opportunity for confusion to those looking for ISV info. Jaroslaw: i'll see if i can find you on irc to discuss kdelibs.com a bit since that's a bit off-topic here. =) --[[User:Aseigo|Aseigo]] 20:43, 11 January 2007 (CET) | *** Moving once its settled in sounds good. As long as at some point we have all our information in one place we should be good. The issue of kdelibs.com becoming an ISV portal raises a question with regards to the ISV section on this website. We don't need two of them IMHO, it'll only split resources and give opportunity for confusion to those looking for ISV info. Jaroslaw: i'll see if i can find you on irc to discuss kdelibs.com a bit since that's a bit off-topic here. =) --[[User:Aseigo|Aseigo]] 20:43, 11 January 2007 (CET) | ||
****In fact, kdelibs.com is planned as a web site about kdelibs technology only (or mostly), as it sounds, and how to use it for developemnt and deployment. Among other plans I think the web site will have a variation of kde.org's look&feel, with some "commercial" touch. Something like trolltech.com is for Qt while there exist various forums devoted Qt, I'd risk such comparison. Companies/organizations having multiple web sites, one per orthogonal topic, are not unusual these days... These are random thoughts for now. ---[[User:Jstaniek|jstaniek]] 21:08, 11 January 2007 (CET) | |||
Revision as of 20:08, 11 January 2007
TODOs
- Check Development/Tutorials/Localization/Unicode content against the Qt4 API, check the theory against Wikipedia's Unicode page.
KDElibs.com and developernew.kde.org coexistence
- Mind if I copy the build info over from kdelibs.com to here under Getting_Started/Build/Unstable_Version-Windows, and then could you review it for current correctness? Thanks --CuCullin 16:13, 11 January 2007 (CET)
- I do not recommend making redundant copies of http://www.kdelibs.com. The content there is under heavy development now. I won't be able to maintain another wiki (I already have FOUR :) ). We can make a move (not a copy) to kdelibs once KDE4 buildsystem is stable. Why? Because many steps are common and we want to share them between targets. For now the instructions are even splitted between msvc and mingw compilers, what's not optimal for maintenance.
According to my vision: eventually, kdelibs.com will be more ISVs-oriented while *.kde.org stays oriented at the community in general. -- jstaniek 17:27, 11 January 2007 (CET)- Moving once its settled in sounds good. As long as at some point we have all our information in one place we should be good. The issue of kdelibs.com becoming an ISV portal raises a question with regards to the ISV section on this website. We don't need two of them IMHO, it'll only split resources and give opportunity for confusion to those looking for ISV info. Jaroslaw: i'll see if i can find you on irc to discuss kdelibs.com a bit since that's a bit off-topic here. =) --Aseigo 20:43, 11 January 2007 (CET)
- In fact, kdelibs.com is planned as a web site about kdelibs technology only (or mostly), as it sounds, and how to use it for developemnt and deployment. Among other plans I think the web site will have a variation of kde.org's look&feel, with some "commercial" touch. Something like trolltech.com is for Qt while there exist various forums devoted Qt, I'd risk such comparison. Companies/organizations having multiple web sites, one per orthogonal topic, are not unusual these days... These are random thoughts for now. ---jstaniek 21:08, 11 January 2007 (CET)
- Moving once its settled in sounds good. As long as at some point we have all our information in one place we should be good. The issue of kdelibs.com becoming an ISV portal raises a question with regards to the ISV section on this website. We don't need two of them IMHO, it'll only split resources and give opportunity for confusion to those looking for ISV info. Jaroslaw: i'll see if i can find you on irc to discuss kdelibs.com a bit since that's a bit off-topic here. =) --Aseigo 20:43, 11 January 2007 (CET)
- I do not recommend making redundant copies of http://www.kdelibs.com. The content there is under heavy development now. I won't be able to maintain another wiki (I already have FOUR :) ). We can make a move (not a copy) to kdelibs once KDE4 buildsystem is stable. Why? Because many steps are common and we want to share them between targets. For now the instructions are even splitted between msvc and mingw compilers, what's not optimal for maintenance.