Request for the 1.0 release

Marcel Holtmann marcel at
Fri Feb 24 09:56:20 PST 2006

Hi J5,

> > > I'm almost done with a 0.61 release.  After that we want to split out
> > > the bindings and the Qt guys have some requirements as they have decided
> > > to use it to replace DCOP in the interest of desktop interoperability.
> > > These have all conspired to hold back 1.0.  When will we get a 1.0
> > > release?  The answer is when it is ready.  What can you do to help out?
> > > Fix bugs, write documentation, test the s*** out of it, etc.  If a lot
> > > of those smaller changes happens before everything else it means there
> > > will be less lead time between splitting out the bindings and getting to
> > > DCOP parity and blessing 1.0.
> > 
> > my plan is to make D-Bus a hard requirement for the Bluetooth daemon. At
> > the moment it is optional and unless the API is marked as stable I don't
> > really tend to change this. Moving over to D-Bus as a hard requirement
> > would make it possible for me to drop a lot of ugly code that deals with
> > non D-Bus compilations. We are using only the low-level API and so I
> > don't really care about the bindings, but I fully understand that they
> > correlate somehow. I actually need an honest estimation how far the
> > low-level API is away from being stable.
> The DCOP parity issue is about the only thing I can think of that would
> change API/ABI at this point.  There needs to be an assessment by the Qt
> guys of what we need to put in the TODO.  Other things like moving
> gnome-VFS to D-Bus are blocking on this also.

thanks for this info, but this actually doesn't make it easier for me.

Can someone from the Qt guys or the gnome-vfs team give me some estimate
if the current low-level API is sufficient or not. From my perspective
it is really important to move the low-level API into a stable form
really soon. Even if the version number isn't 1.0 after all.



More information about the dbus mailing list