[Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?
I noticed Nokia stop developing qbs for a long time, and qtcreator's wip/qbs seems stop developing too. And for now Nokia sells Qt to Digia, I want know how about the future of qbs? If the Digia give up qbs, I will choice CMake as my build system. So, any news or commens are very welcome! -- Best Regards Yuchen ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?
Yuchen spaketh: I noticed Nokia stop developing qbs for a long time, and qtcreator's wip/qbs seems stop developing too. And for now Nokia sells Qt to Digia, I want know how about the future of qbs? If the Digia give up qbs, I will choice CMake as my build system. So, any news or commens are very welcome! I was wondering this too -- Digia, care to comment? I know there are lots of things going on, so it's likely details like the qbs effort may take some time to plan-out. However, it would be good to get-a-feel for direction for an effort like qbs. Even if the answer is, We're looking into it, and will get back to you later, that's fine. However, if the decision is made, please let us know. --charley ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Charley Bay charleyb...@gmail.com wrote: Yuchen spaketh: I noticed Nokia stop developing qbs for a long time, and qtcreator's wip/qbs seems stop developing too. And for now Nokia sells Qt to Digia, I want know how about the future of qbs? If the Digia give up qbs, I will choice CMake as my build system. So, any news or commens are very welcome! I was wondering this too -- Digia, care to comment? I know there are lots of things going on, so it's likely details like the qbs effort may take some time to plan-out. However, it would be good to get-a-feel for direction for an effort like qbs. Even if the answer is, We're looking into it, and will get back to you later, that's fine. However, if the decision is made, please let us know. I know this has been discussed before... and the reasons why not have been told (I do need to search for them again... I know), but I am personally moving my personal projects from qmake to cmake. I am using only cmake to build Qt applications, and I personally think everyone should. It would be great if from now you start pushing towards making cmake the official build system for Qt. Again - you guys already spoken against it and I do need to review those reasons, but this is me speaking - one of the people actually using this beautiful system. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?
On sábado, 11 de agosto de 2012 23.43.43, Diego Iastrubni wrote: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Charley Bay charleyb...@gmail.com wrote: I was wondering this too -- Digia, care to comment? I know there are lots of things going on, so it's likely details like the qbs effort may take some time to plan-out. However, it would be good to get-a-feel for direction for an effort like qbs. Even if the answer is, We're looking into it, and will get back to you later, that's fine. However, if the decision is made, please let us know. I know this has been discussed before... and the reasons why not have been told (I do need to search for them again... I know), but I am personally moving my personal projects from qmake to cmake. I am using only cmake to build Qt applications, and I personally think everyone should. It would be great if from now you start pushing towards making cmake the official build system for Qt. Again - you guys already spoken against it and I do need to review those reasons, but this is me speaking - one of the people actually using this beautiful system. I'm not sure everyone understands the implications, so let's be *very* clear here: Charley was asking -- whether he intended or not -- about Digia's plans to continue developing qbs. That is, the question is whether Digia plans on assigning engineers to work on the tool or not. To be frank, considering the engineers are still choosing whether to accept the Digia contract or not, it's WAY too early to ask about work assignments from Digia. In that light, Diego's statement makes little sense. Digia's or Nokia's or anyone's task list is completely irrelevant for his own choice of buildsystems. However... It *looks* like Diego was actually asking about whether Qt intends to switch to qbs as its own buildsystem. If that was the question, here's the answer: There has been NO decision Many people, including me, want to move away from qmake, the Unix configure script and the Windows configure application, towards a better, more flexible and more maintainable buildsystem. In particular, I'd like to see us do that by 5.1. But the Qt Project has not decided *IF* it's going to switch and, if so, which buildsystem it will select. Though from all likelihood, after the 5.1 branch is created, people will be allowed to work on implementing a different buildsystem for Qt and propose it to the project, citing pros and cons. Only after the work is underway and we can compare the competing solutions will we select one. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
Re: [Development] How about the future of qbs after Nokia sells Qt to Digia?
On 11/08/2012 16:07, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: ... It *looks* like Diego was actually asking about whether Qt intends to switch to qbs as its own buildsystem. If that was the question, here's the answer: There has been NO decision I actually want to make it even more clear, there _HAS_ been a decision _NOT_ to change the build system for Qt 5.0, to ensure that there's full focus on getting Qt 5 itself into tip top shape. Depending on the feedback for Qt 5.0, and the timing, I can also imagine that this will be put on hold for Qt 5.1, if we need to compress the release schedule between 5.0 and 5.1. IMO, the switch of build systems is secondary, the quality and usefulness of Qt is primary. ..and please, let's not rehash the buildsystem discussions again right now, we have better things to do to get Qt 5.0 out. (Don't get me wrong, I don't mind dicussing it again, but now is not the time.) Many people, including me, want to move away from qmake, the Unix configure script and the Windows configure application, towards a better, more flexible and more maintainable buildsystem. In particular, I'd like to see us do that by 5.1. But the Qt Project has not decided *IF* it's going to switch and, if so, which buildsystem it will select. Though from all likelihood, after the 5.1 branch is created, people will be allowed to work on implementing a different buildsystem for Qt and propose it to the project, citing pros and cons. Only after the work is underway and we can compare the competing solutions will we select one. -- .marius ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
