On Saturday 21 January 2012 20:49:40 Stephen Kelly wrote: > Kevin Ottens wrote: > > On Saturday 21 January 2012 16:17:38 Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> Kevin Ottens wrote: > >> > There's three main reasons for this rhythm: > >> > * Qt 5.0 feature freeze is upon us now; > >> > * CMake 2.8.8 will be released in April; > >> > * it'd be nice to release KDE Frameworks 5.0 at Akademy[*]. > >> > >> You mean 'some of the frameworks'? They won't all be done by then. > >> More > >> stuff will need to get into Qt before that's possible. > > > > Yeah, I know a couple of them will need some merging scheduled for Qt > > 5.1 > > already (like equivalent to KSaveFile for instance). But if I > > reintroduce > > the few words I forgot to type which were "a technology preview of" I > > think it's doable. It means it'd build against "qt master" likely > > earmarked to become 5.1[*]. > > Honestly I don't see a point in aiming so early.
Give no aim, no rhythm and the effort will be on the back burner "forever" (in any case for way too long). Let's be honest with ourselves here: that's the biggest risk we face right now. Having monthly check points, and a bigger one in a while where we try to see how a end-user release would look with the current state (give it the name you want I'd call that Technology Preview 1) are IMO the best way to get people motivated (sense of achievement) and to reassess your plans efficiently (early feedback). > It makes mistakes and 'I > thought it would behave like ABC' more risky and costly. I know you're > 'only' talking about technology preview, but once a technology preview is > out, some people will say things like 'We shouldn't change things > significantly now that the technology preview is out' and there will be long > threads on some mailing list somewhere. Honestly for a technology preview we don't necessarily need a large PR around it, and you should expect it to burn your house and to change a lot if necessary. Who talked about a freeze? Not me at least. And I honestly don't think we should take decisions based on some hypothetical people ranting and some future threads in mailing list which didn't appear yet. Fear based decision taking is the best way to derail a project or have an inadequate outcome. > > Come on, it's just *almost* impossible? So still deserves to be > > attempted.> > > :-) > > By someone, but not me. (Apart from the timezone stuff which I am willing to > do, but it's likely that if I try to submit it to Qt it will be blocked > with 'What does John Layt say', which I can't answer because I can't get a > hold of him). On that topic John apparently reappeared recently so I'd expect some improvement. If not we should act soon indeed. > >> * refcounted quit - might happen. > > > > I actually wanted to talk to you about that one. Didn't you have a patch > > aeons ago? What happened to it. > > It spent a long time in limbo because some people didn't want it the feature > in Qt at all, then it was a question of how to prevent bugs in > applications, but now that might have turned. There's still a long way to > go for the patch though (at least several days I'd guess), even after more > than 5 weeks in gerrit: > > http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,10408 OK, thanks for the update. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
