[Development] Qt modules missing mandatory LICENSE files

Lorn Potter lorn.potter at gmail.com
Mon Feb 18 09:32:10 CET 2013


On 18/02/13 16:01, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2013 05:07:42 Lorn Potter wrote:
>> On 15/02/13 20:43, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>>> I don't know why you're packaging those.
>>>
>>> You understand that they are not 'part of Qt 5', right?
>>
>> They are part of Qt, as in Qt Project.
>
> Being hosted on qt-project.org does not make them 'part of Qt', no. What is
> 'part of Qt' is what we tag and release together.

That's just the Qt release package. Qt is bigger than the release 
package. Just because some module doesn't appear in some arbitrarily 
drawn release, doesn't mean is not part of Qt still.
All the modules are still at the same url they have always been. It's 
just that they have been made very hard to find, and thus harder to 
contribute to.

>
> Not being part of a Qt release means not being 'part of Qt'. Anything else
> will only create confusion.

Personally, I think that's a bit of a pedantic and exclusive definition.
I'd rather qt project be inclusive, after all that's what contribution 
is all about.

>
>> They just aren't part of the Qt
>> 5.0 release package. Big difference.
>>
>>> And you understand that they are not stable in any way and their API will
>>> likely change, and they will not be part of Qt 5.1, and they may never be
>>> part of a Qt release?
>>
>> They are stable. Some of them even have active maintainers.
>
> But they don't have releases, and therefore binary incompatible changes can
> still be made without concern.

Yes, modules can even have their own releases.



-- 
Lorn Potter
Senior Software Engineer, QtSensors/QtSensorGestures/QtSystemInfo





More information about the Development mailing list