Then when I find Qt:: in the source code I should patch? Second, what, if any, kinds of bugs might result from using Qt:: rather than TQt::? Darrell

Timothy Pearson wrote: 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)?

On 04/16/2012 12:02 PM, Aleksey Midenkov wrote: 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. But seriously, can't we just pool our resources together and not split up? That's the problem with many splinter groups, they keep splintering up and up until there is nothing left and nobody is happy. Calvin

There are no technical papers at the wiki explaining the benefits, reasons, or how the TQt layer functions. Without this information, TQt becomes a "black box" or more crudely, a pain in the butt because nobody understands the vision or the technical functionality in order to embrace a positive attitude. My personal view is if TQt adds value to the existing KDE3 code base, then let's push some technical papers to the wiki. Good information tends to quiet people and helps them understand the vision. A few people have left or reduced participation with Trinity because of the TQt debate. I am aware that some people with OpenSuse are keeping KDE3 alive. Yet I am unaware of other KDE3 forks. Where are these projects? Significant effort was put into TQt. Yet there have been times in my computer projects when I faced the reality that previous time and energy invested was not going to provide perceived long-term benefits and I abandoned the idea. If TQt is becoming one of those types of projects then let's get this in the open and discussed. If TQt is a non negotiable then this project becomes little different from other notable software projects --- unless there is information available explaining the vision and functionality. If TQt is a good idea but can't be supported long-term because of a lack of manpower, then we make a hard decision to remove TQt and move on. If removing TQt encourages people to become involved and unifies the various KDE3 continuation efforts, then I believe we need to consider that avenue. If TQt is alienating people and causing KDE3 forks, then we all have lost and the other desktops prevail by attrition and splintering. I'm sure that tickles the hell out of some people who never wanted KDE3 extended in any way. Darrell

Life 101: People disagree. The challenge is letting everybody live in peace despite disagreeing. With that said, I think we all can work together rather than splinter. To get there we need to know why everybody has splintered. That there are other KDE3 groups is news to me, but perhaps I live a sheltered life. :) Darrell