On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:45:36PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > 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.
And this is wrong. Keeping it in a compilable state is a burden to everyone. Maintanance is not just adding a new dialog every now and then. And you do not even try to keep it alive. > > 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. I was taking stones from my path (and of the majority of developpers for that matter). > > 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). Now that you look at trac you might as well count the people who needed to do stuff in qt3 even if they did not want to. Andre'
