08.11.2017, 13:34, "Lars Knoll" <lars.kn...@qt.io>: >> On 8 Nov 2017, at 09:09, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:17:30 PST m...@herrdiel.de wrote: >>> --> You say that KDAB contributed much work and that you: "[...] hope to >>> have KDAB back contributing", but you also state, that they are not >>> exactly much-needed: "Everything continues just as before." >> >> Please insert "else" in the sentence, so it reads "everythine *else* >> continues >> just as before", meaning that KDAB's sudden withdrawal was noticed, but did >> not affect the rest of the development. >> >> Note that they have since begun participating again. Whether it's to the >> same >> level, I can't say yet. >> >>> What you **don't** say is, that you "genuinely wish to treat the Qt >>> Project as an Open Governance project and that external contributions >>> are welcomed and valued." >>> >>> There must be a reason not to write this sentence. >> >> Because it goes without saying. > > Correct, it does go without saying. > > Things are probably not perfect though, and I do believe we have areas where > we (as in TQtC) can and should improve. One example: Since we have > development teams working in the same office, some items and ideas that are > discussed over the coffee table are not visible enough to others.
Here are a few (minor) issues that I'm facing when working on QtWebKit: 1. Many things are only possible when you have access to the internal network 1a. Check integration progress or look at build logs before all jobs of integration finish (in the past sometimes logs weren't uploaded even after finish, maybe it's fixed now) 1b. Try build stuff manually on CI build machine to debug build issue which doesn't reproduce locally 1c. Get access to artifacts (mostly fixed for QtWebKit as artifacts with "Packaging" flag are now automatically exported, still relevant for other modules, and there may be cases when artifacts without Packaging flag should be checked 2. Releasing process is completely opaque, and members of release team who are the only ones who can help, are almost always overloaded 3. It would be great if it was possible to get email notifications about state changes in patches for Coin (I cannot view them, but automatic notification that patch went in and was deployed would help) >>> For example: >>> - In your eyes: is Qt currently still being treated as an Open >>> Governance project by the Qt company? >> >> From someone who is independent from both TQtC and from KDAB: yes. >> >>> - If yes: will it continue to be treated this way or are there plans to >>> change that? >> >> I can't speak for TQtC, but I don't see why they should change this in any >> way. It would only make things worse for them, by having to pick up >> maintenance of parts that are maintained by others today. Like me. >> >> Not to mention all the bad PR it would generate. > > The Open Governance model is the foundation of how we develop Qt. It offers > tremendous value to our users and customers. It’s also one of the big items > that differentiates Qt from all it’s competitors. And changing that would be > negative for everybody, including The Qt Company. > > So, speaking for The Qt Company: No, there are definitely no plans to change > that. > > Cheers, > Lars > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
