> and has enough of a track record of a community to ask for help. You quite literally have the system's developer in house. Why do you even need to rely on the community so much? I'd understand if qbs was an external tool, but that's not the case.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 11:49 PM Konstantin Shegunov <kshegu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:09 PM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 10:26:15 PDT Konstantin Shegunov wrote: >> > From my point of view qbs is doomed as long as qmake's alive. Either >> kill >> > qmake and force the developers using Qt (or developing Qt) to use qbs >> >> That's not going to happen any more than our breaking source >> compatibility in >> a major way. >> > > Fair enough. As a consequence qbs gets rather limited exposure, thus it's > not a priority for development. > To make matters worse smaller user base means smaller amount of > bugreports/fixes. Less fixes in turn leads to buggier/quirkier system > leading to fewer people using it. And the circle is complete - unfortunate, > but somewhat expected. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
