[Development] QtQuick ML

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 06:51:08AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 06:18:43AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:10:31AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> >> >>  I'd first like to know if we've come to a decision on
> >> >> whether to have a separate qt-quick at qt-project.org ML?
> >> >>
> >> > i wonder how many more times you want to re-iterate this? do you have
> >> > any *new* arguments in favor of this fragmentation?
> >>
> >> You're right. Nothing has changed in the last month since this was
> >> proposed and no-one objected.
> >>
> > nice try.
> > http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2012-December/008376.html
> 
> Wrong, I'm referring to this:
> http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-components/2013-June/000304.html
> 
> You probably didn't see it because you're not interested in QtQuick so
> don't subscribe to all the QtQuick MLs.
> 
i did not not see it - rather, like everyone else, i simply ignored it
with the thought "won't these guys ever stop beating that dead horse?".

the components list is a relic from the times before the technology was
at the core of qt's future. it should be dissolved asap, not be taken as
a justification for further fragmentation.