On Sunday 18 January 2015 06:08:47 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Unanimity was not required. Only consensus and that was achieved. The > > requests for renaming were argued and heard (I argued for them myself, I > > even prepared patches and had the solution in progress) but in the end the > > consensus was another way. Now everyone, including me, has to abide by > > that decision, unless there's new relevant information that didn't exist > > then. You haven't presented any new information. > > Of course I have. I pointed out several fatal flaws inherent to qtchooser's > design, for which the only fix is to drop qtchooser entirely.
Please list them again, so we can address them. The one I can remember now is the default config file for multilib, which is fixable by using alternative. Multilib development is covering the sun with a sieve, so pardon me if I don't give it too high a priority. > > Once again: I argued against it in 2011-2012, but you don't see me > > rebelling against that now. > > It was a mistake that you didn't fight harder. I did as hard as was allowed. Our governance model is not "last man speaking wins". I had to concede when I found myself won out. > I also see how it happened: You were convinced that it was possible to solve > the problem in a different way (qtchooser) and so accepted to implement > that. Unfortunately, that implementation does not fulfill the > distributions' actual requirements, so we are back to square one. I beg to differ. It solved the problems of the distributions that bothered to help me with the development. > Now I'll also take some blame, because I was aware of several issues with > qtchooser right back when it was introduced (but not all, e.g., I didn't > know about the multilib thing), I voiced my dissent in several places (at > least #fedora-kde IRC and the Fedora kde mailing list) and was trying to get > others (mainly Rex Dieter and Sune Vuorela) to forward my objections > (basically the ones I wrote down in this thread) to you, but this never > happened (they wanted me to sign up to this mailing list and post them > myself), and I didn't want to go through the usual lengthy subscription > process (subscribe in mailman, act on the confirmation mail, disable mail > delivery, subscribe the Gmane gateway to Knode, send the message, reply to > Gmane's confirmation mail) just for that. Since they were never sent, we apply the principle if "silence is consent". Therefore, you implicitly agreed with the implementation. Now we have a legacy to keep, so we can't accept a radical change. Only incremental improvements. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development