On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:48:37 +0000, Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Related to your comment about the Qt Charts being limited I would tend > to disagree.
https://www.qtcentre.org/threads/69718-QChartView-and-QScatterSeries- overrdide-the-label-of-a-QPointF https://www.qtcentre.org/threads/69094-3D-Plot I leave it up to you to google for more ... You might have noticed, that questions on the Qt mailing lists regarding Qt/Charts mostly end up in not being answered, but at least you find this statement from the maintainer: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-November/ 055337.html If you prefer "simple charting" or "not be the be-all-end-all charting solution" over "limited" - I don't care, we can agree on Miikkas wording. But it doesn't affect my conclusion, that Qt users ( including your customers ) would have a better solution, if you would have contributed to an existing 3rd party library instead of reinventing the wheel. > Discussion about Qt Charts is of course welcome, but perhaps not that > relevant for discussion about creating a new repository for Lottie-Qt. True, but Qt/Chart is a good example of what happens, when ignoring existing 3rd party software without technical reasons. And on a more general note: if LGPLv2+ makes code not being appropriate for the Qt project, then don't be surprised that you are not attractive for developers without having a business case in mind. My 2 cents, Uwe _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
