> On 3 Dec 2023, at 12:08, apoenitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 11:25:16AM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development > wrote: >> On 30/11/2023 19:39, apoenitz wrote: >>> I propose to make this setup an official Module of Qt Creator, and herewith >>> also nominate Jarek as Maintainer. Jarek has been pushing the idea and is >>> the >>> author of the biggest existing Qt Creator Solution: TaskTree[2], so for me >>> this >>> is the obvious choice. >>> >>> Comments/questions/opinions? >> >> Just wondering if we could extend the scope: >> do these solutions depend on QtCreator parts somehow? > > No, and not really planned now, but there are a few potential candidates that > depend on each other (remote file and remote process access for instance). For > now the idea is to have only "pure" Qt users there, but if the idea in general > flies then at some time it's imaginable that "solutions" could depend on each > other. > >> If not (I've understood that TaskTree specifically >> doesn't), why not "just" going for a playground module? > > It's not feature-complete yet, and as long as there are still additions > expected > there are benefits to have that in-tree (e.g. atomic commit instead of > submodules) > that we currently believe to outweigh the benefits of a "physical" separation. > But this also may change at some time. > > Andre’
Makes sense to start by moving code into a module under Qt Creator, and evaluate at a later point whether selected solutions could be relevant for Qt or generally be spun out into a separate repository. And +1 for Jarek as maintainer. Volker -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
