That wasn't very constructive/positive... On Monday 08 June 2015 15:22:20 Ben Cooksley wrote: > The Qt developers > didn't want to provide any infrastructure at all to make developer > environments (including our CI system) easier.
The *any* here is too broad. One approach was rejected, there are tons of others. E.g. just naming the variables QT_ instead of XDG_ might have been less controversial. But since everyone was saying, at the same time, that end users don't want env vars, I can understand that the Qt developers thought this issue needs more thinking, to solve all uses cases, not just "KDE CI" (which was a too restrictive line of argumentation compared to what it really was, "developer setup", as you say). > The maintainer(s) of > the QStandardPaths class never reviewed our patch That would be me, and since I don't know how things should work on OSX, I am not in a good position to decide. On top of that I come from the KDE world, so I can't really force a KDE patch into Qt if it's a bit controversial. > , and the module > maintainer for QtCore wanted the opinion of a Digia employee who was > extremely unresponsive. -- David Faure, fa...@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE Frameworks 5
