[lsb-discuss] Moving Qt4 to required for LSB 3.2

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Friday 20 April 2007, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote:
> Have we received further tests from Trolltech or someone to cover many
> of the Qt4 classes? I think without adequate coverage we should not add
> any new module in LSB.

as Jesper noted, more tests are on the way. however, if you are able to 
specify what level of testing would make you comfortable with things then 
that would likely help ensure movement towards meeting expectations.

afaik, test coverage is anything but 100% for the LSB as a whole. this 
shouldn't be reinforced by adding further gaps, of course, but IMHO as long 
as there is forward momentum and demonstrated commitment it shouldn't be a 
show stopper given that allowing it to be so in this case would have 
substantial adverse effects on ISVs relying on Qt4 with regard to being able 
to target the LSB as a meaningful entity.

i believe there is a demonstrated and ongoing commitment to LSB testing 
coverage within Trolltech, and testing is a core part of the development 
process within Trolltech itself aside from the LSB even. i also believe we 
all have a similar goal/commitment with the LSB which includes making it 
meaningful in a practical, real-world way to ISVs; and for ISVs using Qt that 
certainly is substantially enhanced with Qt being there since that is usually 
their primary, and often only, interface to the system.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

Full time KDE developer sponsored by Trolltech (http://www.trolltech.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20070423/d9f13484/attachment.pgp