Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-20 Thread Rohan McGovern
Stephen Kelly said: > On Thursday, May 17, 2012 18:31:43 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > > I don't want to maintain a fork of phonon on qt-project if the developers > > decided they want to continue within the KDE infrastructure. phonon should > > have one upstream place where it is being developed.

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-20 Thread frederik.gladhorn
Hi, after talking with Phonon developers quite some time back, it was agreed that Phonon would be using the qt-project infrastructure (the idea was to have them use either KDE or qt-project). All seemed happy, until it became clear that we would require the CLA for new contributions for Phonon

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-18 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:43:18 you wrote: > Right, no attention from us and no attention from the phonon developers, at > least with respect for Qt 5 end-users. So, by it receiving 'attention' from > us now by simply removing the old "fork" from the repo, it would only hurt > the end-user, makin

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-18 Thread marius.storm-olsen
On 5/18/12 12:02 PM, "ext Stephen Kelly" mailto:stephen.ke...@kdab.com>> wrote: On Friday, May 18, 2012 08:41:13 marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote: > We did promise a minimal migration path from Qt 4 to Qt 5, and removing > the phonon module from qt5.git,

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-18 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Friday, May 18, 2012 08:41:13 marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote: > >Until the Phonon maintainers speak up and let us know what their plans > >for Qt > >5 are, we should consider our qtphonon.git module a disservice to > >everyone. If > >none of them speak up, I recommend removing the module fro

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-18 Thread marius.storm-olsen
On 5/18/12 10:14 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira" wrote: >On sexta-feira, 18 de maio de 2012 05.54.10, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com >wrote: >> This probably means we should keep the old repo there for backwards >> compatibility, and with documentation stating that the module is old and >> out-of-date, a

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-18 Thread Thiago Macieira
On sexta-feira, 18 de maio de 2012 05.54.10, marius.storm-ol...@nokia.com wrote: > This probably means we should keep the old repo there for backwards > compatibility, and with documentation stating that the module is old and > out-of-date, and where and how they can get a more recent version. I

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread marius.storm-olsen
This probably means we should keep the old repo there for backwards compatibility, and with documentation stating that the module is old and out-of-date, and where and how they can get a more recent version. We shouldn't mix build systems in qt5.git itself. If other add-ons decide to use cmake as

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Thursday 17 May 2012 21:42:03 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quinta-feira, 17 de maio de 2012 19.03.30, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > > >What's the difference between webkit and phonon in this regard? > > > > Webkit isn't hosted on qt-project neither, so removing it from qt-project > > is the righ

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Thiago Macieira
On quinta-feira, 17 de maio de 2012 19.03.30, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > >What's the difference between webkit and phonon in this regard? > > Webkit isn't hosted on qt-project neither, so removing it from qt-project > is the right choice if it's being developed somewhere else. The "qt5-module.

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread lars.knoll
On 5/17/12 8:36 PM, "ext Stephen Kelly" wrote: >On Thursday, May 17, 2012 18:31:43 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: >> I don't want to maintain a fork of phonon on qt-project if the >>developers >> decided they want to continue within the KDE infrastructure. phonon >>should >> have one upstream place

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Thursday, May 17, 2012 18:31:43 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > I don't want to maintain a fork of phonon on qt-project if the developers > decided they want to continue within the KDE infrastructure. phonon should > have one upstream place where it is being developed. > > I'd say let's deprecate

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread lars.knoll
I don't want to maintain a fork of phonon on qt-project if the developers decided they want to continue within the KDE infrastructure. phonon should have one upstream place where it is being developed. I'd say let's deprecate the module and remove it from qt5.git. We can keep the code around for s

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Olivier Goffart
On Thursday 17 May 2012 14:46:27 Pier Luigi wrote: > 2012/5/16 Thiago Macieira : > > [cross-posting to kde-multimedia] > > > > On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git > >> I am talking about th

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Laszlo Papp
> Yes, that's the idea. Practice has disagreed so far. Best Regards, Laszlo Papp ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Girish Ramakrishnan
Hi Pier, On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Pier Luigi wrote: > 2012/5/16 Thiago Macieira : >> [cross-posting to kde-multimedia] >> >> On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git >>> I am talking about

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-17 Thread Pier Luigi
2012/5/16 Thiago Macieira : > [cross-posting to kde-multimedia] > > On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git >> I am talking about the qtphonon repository. >> >> The Phonon team maintains phonon under t

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-16 Thread Stephen Kelly
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 19:50:19 Thiago Macieira wrote: > [cross-posting to kde-multimedia] > > On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git > > I am talking about the qtphonon repository. > > > >

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-16 Thread Thiago Macieira
[cross-posting to kde-multimedia] On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: > Hi, > > Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git > I am talking about the qtphonon repository. > > The Phonon team maintains phonon under the KDE umbrela, and the qtphonon > repo

Re: [Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-16 Thread Thiago Macieira
[cross-posting to kde-multimedia] On quarta-feira, 16 de maio de 2012 18.55.52, Olivier Goffart wrote: > Hi, > > Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git > I am talking about the qtphonon repository. > > The Phonon team maintains phonon under the KDE umbrela, and the qtphonon > repo

[Development] qtphonon's status.

2012-05-16 Thread Olivier Goffart
Hi, Why do we mantain an outdated fork of phonon in qt5.git I am talking about the qtphonon repository. The Phonon team maintains phonon under the KDE umbrela, and the qtphonon repository is years behind. Is there a point taking time to still update this repository to make it work with Qt5?