On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 02:00:18 PDT Christian Gagneraud wrote: > May I ask: Which democratic/meritocratic process was used to take > this decision?
There are two decisions we're discussing here: 1) Qt Company stopping its support for qbs 2) Qt's switch to a different buildsystem (specifically, CMake) > I do understand that the QtC is the Qbs instigator/maintainer, so > nobody can blame you for pulling the plug off and adjusting resources > allocation. That's #1. That's the company's choice and does not need community involvement. The community does not have to agree either and can continue developing Qbs if it wants to. > Who/when/where was the decision of switching to CMake taken? That's #2. That decision HAS NOT been taken. What you see is Lars saying they've done their due diligence to see if they were shooting themselves in the foot if the choice was CMake, if they had to pull the plug on Qbs. However, de facto we only had two choices: Qbs and CMake. With one out of the running, that only leaves one, which will likely win by default. Unless someone steps up and does extra work on something else, making it viable. I've been hearing great things about Meson and their maintainers did contact me after the July email asking if we were considering it. I answered: sure, so long as someone does come along and do the work. > - Did Jake left the QtC due to your early decision to drop qbs? ( I > personally do think that the decision was taken long time ago) He did not. He left months before the decision because he had an offer from a different company that he wanted to take. -- 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
