On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 08:35:37PM +0000, Eike Hein wrote:
May 13, 2021 9:59 PM, "Oswald Buddenhagen" <oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote:
what would interest me is why you chose to host this on your own
infrastructure instead of publicly demanding that tqtc plays by the
rules and hosts the fork on qt project infra, where it belongs, and the
possibility of which is explicitly codified in
https://wiki.qt.io/Branch_Guidelines (note the historical example
given).
Actually, we did not.
We suggested that it would be preferential to host this on Qt Project
infrastructure.
We could not agree on it.
well, you should have demanded it in public. if digia, err, tqtc want to
be blatantly hypocritical, they sure can have the bad publicity they
deserve for it.
In fact, our leading suggestion was to re-open the branches as per
usual and simply don't do the tags/releases.
that couldn't have flown, as without the project's leading contributor
this can only be a vendor branch, pretty much by definition. also, given
that you want/need to rebase the branch when tqtc finally releases the
official source, this isn't really mainline material.
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
