[Development] QtQuick ML
oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com
Thu Jul 18 16:44:11 CEST 2013
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:18:18AM -0700, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen at digia.com> wrote:
> > 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,
merging into development@ would be *quite* an "upgrade", and would
conform with prior consensus on virtually the same question.
> and you both want it dead *and* insist on ignoring it?
that's how most people react to what they perceive as trolling.
> You haven't even addressed any of the arguments, which are the same as
> the ones you (implicitly) agreed with about the IRC channels.
i don't consider the "irc situation" relevant to this discussion. irc
"lives" a lot faster and can be a lot more confusing/distracting than a
mailing list. so if you want a unified user/developer channel separate
from the main channels, you can do that. not that your users will care
about this artificial split from #qt in the longer run, but it's your
> 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?
you really have a talent for intentionally finding the most backwards
interpretation of everything ...
no, i *don't* agree with your plan. at all.
More information about the Development