On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:34:34AM +0000, Simon Hausmann wrote: > > >From the same email perhaps it's also worth quoting the first paragraph: > " > > first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now. > Nobody is proposing that LLVM moves off cmake, and nobody is proposing > anything that's causing people using cmake more work. > "
Sure, that's how one approaches larger controversial changes, not just in software development, but also general politics: 1. Promise that everything is optional, and existing uses won't change, and nobody will be affected unless opted-in. This keeps the initial outcry a bay. Optionally, start to belittle opposition as inveterate nay-sayers, as there is clearly no reason to oppose something people do voluntarily. 2. Once installed, apply salami tactics by extending the scope of the measure, "add value" to the new system, asked for or not, and let the old one rot. If needed, little stabs in the back help to speed up the process. 3. At some time the new system will indeed be better in some setups than the old one, and the opt-in gets opt-out. This is also a good time to gauge remaining resistance, and either continue with 2 or directly go to 4. 4. Sweep remaining issues under the carpet and declare the old system dead. As I said, that's nothing specific to LLVM and Cmake. The pattern to message "Nobody has any intention to do X" while planning or even already executing X is so widely used that in the presence of such a statement it is safer to assume that this is just stage 1 of the process above than to accept the statement at face value. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development