[Development] QtQuick ML

[Alan Alpert]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
<oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> wrote:
> 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.

People who use the list want it upgraded, and you both want it dead
*and* insist on ignoring it?

You haven't even addressed any of the arguments, which are the same as
the ones you (implicitly) agreed with about the IRC channels.

The best interpretation I can get of your wishes, from all these terse
and "poetically worded" emails, is that you don't really care what
happens but agree in principle. Anyone else with a +1?

--
Alan Alpert