I think the bigger issue, that many people have expressed here, but not said as such, is the Qt release cycle is not Agile. As more teams adopt Agile development practices, the chasm between what user teams needs and what is being delivered grows. As a result, it seems that Qt is drifting away from what it's users want or need. Sometimes though, it's not even so much that we need release, we just need a patch to hold us over to the next release. My Agile team does two week sprints so we can reorder priorities twice a month. The Qt community has no say (AFAIK) in determining the priority status, or what is worked on when. The worst issue I know of as an example of this is the Canvas bug on iOS ( https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-37095 ). It's been in there for 2.5 _yeara_, 17 votes and 36 watchers. Which in my experience is pretty damn high, though there are older and higher ones. Use the search string "votes >= 17 AND status != Closed and type = Bug" to get a list of that and it's brethren. Which brings up the question, why isn't the Qt staff using a similar search to prioritize their backlog on a regular basis?
I think the incorporation of a regular search of that nature would immensely improve the product. I don't think there is any transparency in the selected for fix criteria? > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 at 5:56 AM > From: "John C. Turnbull" <ozem...@ozemail.com.au> > To: "Bernhard Lindner" <priv...@bernhard-lindner.de> > Cc: interest@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Interest] What don't you like about Qt? > > It's ironic in a way that every major graphical toolkit (and with many large > software projects in general) that I've worked with over decades now, the > attitude has commonly seemed to have been that "new" is better than "stable". > > The end result is a product full of both older and newer unstable features. > > Then credibility and reputation both take a major hit and for serious > production users, frustration overwhelms them as they wait for features they > have been using and investing years of effort/time/money into to simply work > without major defects. > > More often than not though, if these features are not part of the "new shiny > strategy", they tend to just rot... > > > On 3 Oct. 2016, at 18:14, Bernhard Lindner <priv...@bernhard-lindner.de> > > wrote: > > > > 1. New features (quantity) are priorized over bug fixing (quality). > > Suggestions > > are almost sensless. I reduced writing bug reports and totally gave up > > writing > > suggestions due to this. > > > > 2. Widgets have too low priority. In general new fancy features are > > priorized > > above bread-and-butter features from my point of view. > > > > 3. Components have been declared outdated while the replacements did not > > provide the same feature set. This seriously damages Qt's reputation. > > > >> It's not unusual for us developers and contributors to lose > >> perspective of what's important. > >> After many years spent on very particular implementation details, it > >> becomes difficult to see outside of the box. > >> > >> And because we already know the good aspects I'm asking only about the bad. > >> No need to discuss or reach an agreement, just go ahead and enumerate > >> what you don't like. > > > > -- > > Regards, Bernhard > > _______________________________________________ > > Interest mailing list > > Interest@qt-project.org > > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest > _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
