> On domingo, 9 de setembro de 2012 13.25.29, Boudewijn Rempt wrote: > > The solution for a bug can never be to wilfully break existing applications! > > What can I as an application developer depend on if that's deemed > > acceptable? "Yeah, we had a feature, and yeah, people depend on it, but > we > > don't give a damn." --- that's the message. And no matter how you dress it > > up with inevitability and force majeure and whatever, that doesn't change > > the message that Qt cannot be depended upon by application developers. > > If it will make you sleep better at night, then it's a bug. > > A bug means that it's unintentional and we'll correct the situation in a > future release. So you can depend on Qt: we will make things work and keep > them working. > > We just can't promise when that will be. And except when they break.
I skimmed through the thread as I was away for a few days and missed this unfold so I wanted to throw in my thoughts on the subject as it relates to something I have done in the past. To clarify, I did the patch that everyone is referring to, I actually did it in my Nokia days when I had access to the tablet and passed it on to someone after I joined Digia. It is a hack because I had to try and get around the mouse position problem, I tried then to figure out how to do it properly so it could be submitted at the time but was unable to do so. Since I guess the tablet is going to end up back in Digia hands (assuming someone knows where it is in the Oslo office) I am willing to look at this again but would prefer someone who could help on this side of things as my knowledge of the tablet side is limited at best and I couldn't find out where the information needed was actually being stored. If I could get that information I think I could solve the rest. Again assuming the tablet is still around and usable somewhere :) Andy _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
