[Development] Contributing to the Qt Project behind a hefty firewall and proxy server

[Sven Anderson]

On 16.07.2012 16:06, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>> No, going through 443 is _not_ an option of the firewall, it's like
>> lock-picking a useless lock.
>
> No, the firewall and the whole establishment have the option to go out
> over the port 443.

So, you are saying, the implementer of such a firewall thinks, it's a 
good idea and a valid option, to tunnel all kinds of traffic through 
port 443? I would like to talk to that person. Well, maybe better not... ;-)


>> It's not a fix at all. It's a workaround. Important difference!
>
> My whole point is that, let us leave the decision to the companies, if
> it is a workaround for them or fix. It is *them* deciding about
> *their* policies and approvals. The Qt Project should get as much
> support as possible from outside, especially now. Company policies and
> decisions are not the target of the Qt Project after all. It can just
> aid them as much as possible.
>
> Some companies will open ports up, some will not. The latter might
> give up the contribution to the Qt Project, and will implement their
> own internal solution on top of Qt (not in) without contributing back.
> That would be a pity...

That's why we all agreed, that the workaround should be established. 
What confuses us is (well, me at least), that you seem to support these 
broken policies.


Sven