Hi, On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 12:24 PM, J-P Nurmi wrote: > There have been some discussions about rewriting the entire item-view > framework. I personally believe that would be best done in a major > release. :)
I guess you're talking about the generic positioner-based view stuff here, but I wasn't thinking quite so ambitious. That is indeed one thing that is still bouncing around my head, but I suspect it will stay there for some time more :) More generally, I don't disagree that such a thing would be a major version change, or at least, done in a separate import. Anyway, I'll try write a longer mail about some of my thoughts on this stuff so they have a place in the public record, split off from this thread, as it is definitely a bit of a tangent. > +1 to having a branch for it (do you have a name in mind? wip/itemviews? > wip/tableview?) > > I was thinking wip/itemviews, but I don’t mind wip/tableview either. :) If your specific goal here is to provide enablers for tableview, then I'd go for wip/tableview. > Having more branches could be an option. All the tasks are somehow > connected to each other, though, so I was thinking that it might be > easiest to do it all in the same branch to avoid excessive conflicts and > merging between multiple WIP-branches. The last two, SortFilterProxyModel > and TreeModelAdaptor, would be the most logical ones to split to separate > branches, but on the other hand, they also need to be implemented so that > they play well with the rest. Yes, that's pretty much the sort of division I was thinking; and especially if Pierre-Yves can help with contributing on the SFPM part, perhaps that's a good candidate for doing "separately". I understand and agree with the need for unity, of course, but perhaps communication can help to some degree there. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I'll leave the "how" to you people, you know the details of this work better than I :) > There’s so much to do that there is no way we could make all this happen > before the 5.9 feature freeze in two weeks. :) Text doesn't quite convey the emotion I meant that statement to evoke ;-); but I guess then you're thinking something like 5.11 (potentially earlier, if the planets align correctly)? Again, I'm not expecting promises here, just a rough idea would be a help so I can know when I need to start trying to pay closer attention to anything touching the area. Thanks again. -- Robin Burchell ro...@crimson.no _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development