Hi Lars, Tuukka,
> I also would very much like you to stay here.
Also, you need to write some blog post about that Qbs right now is not
dropped, that the community starts working on that. ;)
Because the previous "deprecation" news had a very bad effect on Qbs
popularity. You are almost killed this nice build system.
So, what sense now to stay on Qt infrastructure (what you can offer to
us now, what's a goodies ) ? ;)
BR, Denis.
15.09.2021 13:52, Denis Shienkov пишет:
Hi Lars, Tuukka,
> I also would very much like you to stay here.
AFAIK, a main issue here not about of maintenance behaviour. A main
issue in the access right on the Qbs project. F.e. right now it is
hard to maintenance the CI integration with the GitHub, to generate
the pre-compiled releases and other stuff (maybe Ivan can explain a
betetr).
Also, a main issue is for the CI for the bare-metal toolchains, where
we need to use the self-runners instead of Docker containers (there
are impossible to use the dockers).
So, if you want to be Qbs stayed in the QtCompany infrastructure, then
you need to help us a bit, e.g. provide some separate server resources
(e.g. two VMs with Linux && Windows OS installed) where we can setup
all required stuff to work with CI. ;)
Because right now I use own host PC as self-runner for CI, what is
very bad and non-stable approach. ;)
BR, Denis
15.09.2021 13:32, Lars Knoll пишет:
Hi Ivan,
I also would very much like you to stay here. QBS is great project
and something that came out of the Qt work and still has very strong
ties to it.
I am fully with Tuukka that what we want is to make it a good
experience and easy for people to work here in the project. Blocking
other peoples work is certainly not in line with this.
The governance model has the ’no confidence’ clause for a reason and
if you have tried other means before, I can and will of course
arrange such a vote.
Cheers,
Lars
On 15 Sep 2021, at 12:18, Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turu...@qt.io
<mailto:tuukka.turu...@qt.io>> wrote:
Hi,
I would not like Qbs development to move away from the Qt project.
It is very unfortunate that you have had bad experience and
misbehavior from one approver. We want to constantly improve the
experience of working within the Qt project and naturally this kind
of incidents are not doing that. Therefore, it is very good that you
have raised the topic in the mailing list, as many were not aware of
it earlier. On the positive side, I do not think there is any
general hostility towards Qbs within the Qt projects – on the
contrary I can see a lot of good co-operation.
Yours,
Tuukka
*From:*Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org
<mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> on behalf of Иван
Комиссаров <abba...@gmail.com <mailto:abba...@gmail.com>>
*Date:*Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
*To:*Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io <mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>>
*Cc:*Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org
<mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
*Subject:*Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt
Governance Model by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on
our Discord server and the community overall seems positive - there
were several votes for the migration and no votes against. This
migration might be healthy to Qbs as a lot of newcomers are not
familiar with Gerrit but familiar with GitHub and it’s pull-request
model.
Also, it will clearly separate who can approve/reject patches to Qbs
and to the rest of Qt world.
If there are no objections, I will create an INFRA issue about the
migration - it should not be very hard to do.
Ivan
14 сент. 2021 г., в 17:33, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io
<mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> написал(а):
Hi,
Let’s also take up the formal part of the request.
On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров <abba...@gmail.com
<mailto:abba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening
in the future - if technically possible, I’d like to request
the revoke of his approver rights on the Qbs project as per
this part of the Qt Governance Model:
«In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked
by a vote of no confidence, proposed by an existing Approver
or Maintainer and arranged by the Chief Maintainer.
Privilege revocation requires a two-thirds majority vote of
those Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» [3]
On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt
<rich...@weickelt.de <mailto:rich...@weickelt.de>> wrote:
The question is whether this is an abuse of approver rights.
This is a relevant question for the Qt project. Any person
with approver
rights has the ability to cause a production stop. Ivan is
asking for help
in this particular case and I am seconding his request.
Ivan and Richard, do I understand you correctly that you’d like
to have a formal vote of no confidence according to QUIP-2?
Please understand that this clause is meant as a last resort,
when other solutions have failed.
We will also need to consider that the Qt Governance Model only
defines global Approver rights for all of the Qt Project. The
request was however limited to QBS, so we would need to find a
way to handle this. I can only see two options there, either we
start extending our governance model here (can be done with a
lazy consensus on that extension), or change the scope to the
whole project having much more severe implications.
Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also
like to hear your view on this. As I stated in my previous mail
in this thread, I strongly believe, that the people doing the
actual work decide on the direction and individual changes. The
Governance model states the same, the maintainer takes the
decision in case no agreement can be reached. As far as I can
see, your actions are conflicting with this.
Thank you,
Lars
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
