Hi,
I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as mailing lists
are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the API review we can then
decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt 5.13 as TP or not. For the
existing modules we do the API review a bit later, but for the proposed new
modules we could well do it already now - if not recently completed.
Yours,
Tuukka
On 17/01/2019, 15.28, "Development on behalf of Christian Stenger"
<development-boun...@qt-project.org on behalf of christian.sten...@qt.io> wrote:
Nope, I'm talking about the module.. But inside the plugin review I try to
limit my criticism to the QC part as there are more competent developer to tell
you how to do the stuff correctly inside a Qt module.
But even I see lots of stuff there that is a plain mess and should not be a
part of Qt in its current state.
________________________________________
From: Aleksey Kontsevich <tantr...@ya.ru>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 2:07:19 PM
To: Christian Stenger; Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok
now. And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic
(there was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit
keyword for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc.
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
17.01.2019, 14:19, "Christian Stenger" <christian.sten...@qt.io>:
>> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code
styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do
>
> You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not
ready for more than a playground.
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of
Aleksey Kontsevich <tantr...@ya.ru>
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
> To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
> Cc: Qt development mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and
missing actions to fix these.
>
> There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code
styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksey
> Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
>
> 17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" <maurice.kalinow...@qt.io>:
>> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be
part of Qt or not, no?
>>
>> We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was
https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>>
>> “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the
technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief
Maintainer.”
>>
>> To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a
repository request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>>
>> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and
missing actions to fix these.
>>
>> Maurice
>>
>> From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> On Behalf Of
Lars Knoll
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
>> To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>
>> Cc: Qt development mailing list <development@qt-project.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>>
>>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
>>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially
for
>>>> both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>>
>>> Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find
enough time
>>> to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>>
>> As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully
supported module.
>>
>>> In particular, I want to
>>> take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is
working on:
>>>
https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>>
>> Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>>
>>> So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>>> experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by
others.
>>
>> See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Lars
>>
>> ,
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development@qt-project.org
>> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
