I'm quoting Robin's email (with some of my comments), because I think it was a great message that I don't want "lost":
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robin Burchell <robin...@viroteck.net>wrote: > Hi Tuukka, > > (now that I've left some hours to digest this...) > > 2011/12/15 Turunen Tuukka <tuukka.turu...@digia.com>: > > So now there is total of 108 improvements and bug fixes available in Qt > > Commercial 4.8.0 that are not part of the LGPL release. I want to > underline > > that this is not the intended way of differentiating our offering. Going > > forward I hope that we can be more aligned. I would like to see most of > the > > current delta integrated to Qt by the time of 4.8.1, if it is possible. > > First: let me say thanks for bringing this up sooner rather than > later. That is certainly quiet a backlog (in a bad way), and one that > should be addressed ASAP, if not yesterday :). It's also pleasing to > hear that you want to work to bring these changes back to the Qt > Project. > We're a Qt Commercial customer, and attended the Commercial Forums at Qt Developer Days in San Francisco a few weeks ago, so this was not a surprise to us. The issue was explained (multiple development processes at different organizations, current in-inefficiencies synchronizing maintenance among the participants), and the greatest concern seemed to be that the community-as-a-whole might be confused about how/why this "result-came-about", when the only issue is simply that community-management is still in the process of being launched, and we have not yet established efficient synchronization across the different structures. Agree with Robin: This is an important issue (technical backlog), and it is A Good Thing(TM) it was brought up through a clear message to the community in a timely manner. Further, having the benefit of "more-in-depth-information" shared by Digia at Developer Days, IMHO this is merely a "process issue" (albeit a "real one"). Digia did important work with these changes that benefit the *whole* community, and the goal is to share them with the *whole* community. We (the "whole community") merely need a process that permits this to happen as efficiently as possible, and IMHO everybody is already "on-board" with a positive "work-together" Goal-And-Attitude to ensure we all vector in the same direction. In short, my opinion is simply: This is merely a (short-term) result from the fact that multiple processes-and-structures currently exist. We can improve this. I see only positive intent-and-actions among all the players, so this clearly seems resolvable. > In my opinion, there's two issues that need addressing here. > > The first (already brought up) is gerrit. Gitorious' merge requests > are painful for everyone involved, so they're just going to slow you > down. Once things get into Gerrit, assuming they work in a similar > fashion to Qt 5, I think you'll find that changes can get pushed > forward a fair bit easier (especially assuming you know the right > people to poke for reviews, which I expect you do for the most part). > > The second is that these changes have been going to Qt 4.8. Some > people seem to have assumed this was an issue, but I'm not entirely > sure this was correct, as I seem to recall that Ossi had a magical > script to somehow mangle changes from 4.x into Qt 5.x[1] - and if that > is the case, there really isn't much further problem I think. If this > script doesn't do what I'm hoping, then we're going to have to figure > out how to get this work into Qt 5 with the minimum of pain (meaning > as soon as possible), before merging becomes impossible or at least > impractical. > Very good points. > So anyway, the summary of my thoughts on solving this would be: > - get 4.x into Gitorious ASAP > +1 > - get the changes into 4.x (can probably be ongoing while the above > isn't finished, but will be helped) > +1 > - cherry-pick them into Qt 5 (in any way possible) to make sure work > isn't lost or duplicated, since I assume that your customers will be > asking about Qt 5 sooner rather than later :) > +1 We are a commercial customer, and yes, we want Qt5 "sooner". ;-)) > ...and we're back to working as one big, happy family in Gerrit :) > > [1]: > http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2011-November/000483.html > - though this repo has apparently been merged into qtrepotools. > Really good points and suggestions by Robin, +1. --charley
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development