On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:13 PM, David Faure <fa...@kde.org> wrote: > That wasn't very constructive/positive...
Sorry, i've spent way too much time fighting with the Qt folks on this one. > > 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. Thiago rejected that approach immediately when I suggested it over IRC. He basically said it was XDG_* or nothing, and won't allow XDG_* to proceed unless it is given the okay by the previously mentioned unresponsive Digia employee. As maintainer of QtCore he holds veto rights in this instance I believe. > 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. That makes sense. > >> , 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 > Regards, Ben
