On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:32 PM Pier Luigi Fiorini wrote: >> From my point of view qbs is doomed as long as qmake's alive.
NIkolai Marchenko (30 October 2018 18:38) replied: > I would much rather this abomination died instead. You are not alone. Unfortunately, the project has depended on it for several years, with the result that we have a support commitment that we can't simply abandon, much as we (especially those involved in supporting it) would like to. We have to make a graceful transition to something else first. The questions then are: what ? and: how soon can we get to the point where we can put qmake's death on our road-maps ? > I've switched to qbs when I got way too annoyed by how qmake does > things and I've never been happier. It's clear that QBS has great potential. Unfortunately, the corporation that initially supported its development does not see a way to monetise it, so is no longer willing to fund its development. It is available as open source code that others can develop and maintain, but it's only going to make it if others are willing to do most of the work. In some sense, the history of mixed signals - TQtC continued development but did little marketing and neglected important things like documentation - is a symptom of it being an experiment. Until management had a full understanding of where this lead, they let development explore the possibility that a better build system is worth investing in. Eventually they saw enough to make their decision and decided to bail. Some of us may not be persuaded that decision was for the best; but I'm not used to writing business plans, much less evaluating their viability, so I'm not going to try to tell them that their decision harms the interests of their share-holders, which is the only kind of argument I can expect the officers of a publicly-traded corporation to care about. Meanwhile, the Qt project gets to chose its build system. If we have a groundswell of support from outside TQtC that takes over development of QBS and makes it capable of serving as that build system, I think quite a lot of us shall be very happy to see it. Otherwise, CMake is the only candidate with a road-map to deliver tolerably soon, so there we go. Painful as its syntax is (I've begun reviewing the work for it), it's there, someone else is supporting it, and the expected time to the final demise of qmake does look shorter than our other options. Prove that wrong by volunteering to work on QBS, or come to terms with the non-ideal path we've landed on, Eddy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development