FWIW, since I +2’ed the "Initial QtTelemetry commit for review” - that was a +2 in the context of “this can go into a playground repository, and more work will follow to implement missing functionality, add documentation, support building in namespaces etc”. This is in the spirit of making small steps forward, rather than for waiting for the single perfect commit.
A +2 to get a commit accepted into a playground repo does - hopefully obviously - not mean that there are “no concerns about code quality”, or that the code is otherwise ready for prime-time. Volker > On 17 Jan 2019, at 13:03, Aleksey Kontsevich <tantr...@ya.ru> wrote: > >> 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
