Ronald You reported a bug, got a response and have made your other points 50x over now.
If you donβt like how Qt handles things, fork the code base and maintain it yourself. Seriously this has been going on for over a week now. Take a step back and have drink. πΈππ₯πππ Sent from my iPad On Oct 17, 2017, at 5:17 PM, Roland Hughes <rol...@logikalsolutions.com<mailto:rol...@logikalsolutions.com>> wrote: On 10/16/2017 02:22 AM, Viktor Engelmann wrote: If YOU need a copy of something which clearly will not fit within the confines of the bug tracker system YOU take the additional time to copy it. Turning your argument around, what happens when your current bug tracking system disappears and is replaced by something else? You _still_ lose the history. The bug tracking system is under our control - it will not just disappear (from our perspective). Oh yes it will! Speaking as someone who has heard that soooooo many times before, let's just count a few for Qt shall we. The Trolltech bug database was never going to just disappear (from our perspective). It did. A tiny fraction of the bugs migrated to the new system but most were mass exterminated with "The version this bug is reported against is no longer supported..." The Nokia bug tracker was never going to just disappear (from our perspective). It did. Few, if any of the older bugs made it into the current database. Most were mass exterminated with "The version this bug is reported against is no longer supported..." We could replace it some day in the future, but not without transferring the knowledge to a new system. Your blog post might just disappear (from our perspective) - I have seen situations like that often enough. Stackoverflow also demands that you briefly state what you find on a page you link (and for the same reason). At some point one of two things will happen. The company which currently owns Qt will be eaten _OR_ the OpenSource Qt project will fork. The second possibility is __extremely__ close to happening as I type this. There are an awful lot of companies, not to mention OpenSource projects which feel they have been completely abandoned by the powers which be at Qt. Indeed, many of them have been. I get a phone call 6-18 months from this pimp named Harmman (sp?) something or other to go work on a medical device enhancement. Need Qt 3 and OS/2 Warp skills. Company filed Qt 3 bugs which weren't addressed by then owners, had to customize Qt itself and is now maintaining their own little spinoff because enhancements don't require a 7+ year clinical trial process. I hear from quite a few companies in similar boats. They started development for a medical/industrial device which had a lengthy testing/approval process, filed bug reports for that version only to see them rot or fall victim to a mass extermination. The current owners of Qt and the current OpenSource maintainers don't offer or seem to understand the concept of an LTS (Long Term Support) version. They are constantly pursuing script kiddies and that worthless QML instead of maintaining the base which built them. This will soon force a fork in the OpenSource project. One which rips out all of the QML and focuses on nothing but bug fixes for 12 years. Yes, 12 years. That's how long these environments need a stable tool set. You have a 1-2 year development cycle, up to 7 years in clinical trials, and 5+ years of enhancement/maintenance product life. Enough of these companies are starting to run into each other or hire consultants who have worked at others in the same boat that the "maintain our own" philosophy is starting to morph into "we maintain a fork." Also, the blog post contains a lot of informations that are irrelevant to the bugreport (like where you got the instruction, the complaints of the other readers of that how-to, the complaint about the reliability of how-tos on the internet in general, etc.) Well, if you think "where you got the instruction" is irrelevant then you aren't qualified to fix the problem. The "where" is the most important part as it is the official wiki. That wiki is spawning lots of other blog posts and wikis which are also wrong because they are based on it. A single test application which uses every OpenSource database in the Raspbian repos along with the WebEngine needed to be used to proof the instructions. This wasn't done because the wiki was developed from a "user story" via AGILE instead of proper software methodology. As a result, the instructions don't work for much beyond "Hello World!" Lastly I would like to point out that improving the bug report would probably have taken less time than what you have invested on this complaint. Improving a bug report which will most likely rot until the next mass extermination would not have helped as many people nor would it have provided additional content for "The Phallus of AGILE and Other Ruminations" hopefully being released sometime next year. -- Roland Hughes, President Logikal Solutions (630)-205-1593 http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com http://www.infiniteexposure.net http://www.johnsmith-book.com http://www.logikalblog.com http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog http://lesedi.us/ http://onedollarcontentstore.com _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org<mailto:Interest@qt-project.org> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
