Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:15:12AM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:49:42PM +0100, José Matos wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday 21 August 2007 21:35:46 Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> > > > >> > > > The Qt3 frontend is still available from svn. If there had been >> > > > a real interest in further development it would have happened. >> > > >> > > At the time there was interest, but it was nevertheless removed. >> > >> > Enrico, in the interest of historical truth (whatever that is :-) >> > ), I have suggested (as release manager) to re-enable it for 1.5 >> > after Greve's meeting. The only person who replied to me was Geog >> > that said that he was no more interested.
Almost. Jürgen was still interested, but not if he was alone. >> Sure, it would have been easier to keep it alive than trying to rise >> it again from the dead. > > It would have eaten resources from a dozen or so active developers which > would have reluctantly invested part of there time to maintain qt3. Bullshit. The offer by me and Jürgen was to do the maintenance, so nobody else would have needed to invest a single second. The complaint was not that qt3 was removed, everybody agreed that it would be removed for the 1.6 development cycle. The complaint was that qt3 went immediately from 'supported' status to 'dead', without the intermediate rotting period the gtk frontend was allowed, and simultaniously a ridicolous freeze was announced, weakening the 'maintenance' argument even further. > We would have needed workarounds and even more conditional compilation > than we have now. No. It was also consensus that support for new features (e.g. outliner) would not be required in qt3. > Open source simply does not work that way. If somebody is interested > there will be maintanance. Correct. But open source does not work either if your team-mates deliberately throw stones in your way without reason. > The contrapositon of that is: If there's no > maintanance, then nobody was interested. As we saw nobody working on qt3 > (and Gtk for that matter) the conclusion is that nobody actually was > interested. Bullshit again (in the qt3 case, concerning gtk you are right). qt3 was continously kept up to date (last change by me at rev 15408) right until it was removed (rev 15431). > The commercial world works slightly different, but as nobody payed real > money for qt3/gtk maintanace, a similar conclusion can be reached: There > is also no commercial interest (surprise...). > >> Yes, they are better spent in adding new build systems. I stand in my >> opinion that the Qt3 and gtk frontends were murdered. > > And nobody called the police. I sometimes murder mosquitos, too, LyX users seem to be a masochistic species. Look at the open 1.5 bugs in bugzilla. Georg PS: I am not interested in yet another discussion of this issue. I can however not stand it if people try to rewrite history.
