[Development] QtQuick ML

Alan Alpert 416365416c at gmail.com
Thu Jul 18 16:46:30 CEST 2013

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Alan Alpert <416365416c at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You haven't even addressed any of the arguments, which are the same as
>> the ones you (implicitly) agreed with about the IRC channels.
> Alan, it is not the same, for me, at least. I have always considered the
> qml/quick irc channel as a place for user support. I think there should be a
> clear separation between user support and actual development discussion
> about future direction and so forth.

It was not explicitly mentioned in the #qt-quick IRC discussion, and I
thought it was, so I apologize for skipping over that.

The original #qt-components channel was started for actual development
discussion, not user support, for coordination of the developers of
different component sets. However, it was also often used by the
components developers to ask QtQuick questions when doing their
implementation. Those questions often straddled the line between
development and user support.

When the #qt-quick channel merged #qt-components and #qt-qml (the
latter of which was already a combined user/developer channel, but
only during AEST ;) ) it seemed clear to me that it would lead to a
combined user/developer channel. This would allow discussions there
based on topic without wondering about an unclear user/developer
split, largely because QtQuick.Controls developers are QtQuick users.

When this was touched on in the other thread, I believe the point was
that QtQml discussions, which are separate from QtQuick discussions,
would take place in the existing Qt channels (#qt-labs and #qt,
although realistically most will be in #qt-v4vm for the short term

> As for user questions, there is already the interest mailing list, and for
> development... wasn't it okay when you sent a set of emails in here last
> time in a similar scenario and there was a significant amount of feedback?
> Could you please elaborate on what went wrong with that?

The feedback last time was mixed, though primarily against. Nothing
went wrong there, we followed that feedback at the time. My experience
after trying it is that it has not been effective, as many people
interested in QtQuick are still not on the general development mailing
list and so it is a poor vehicle for reaching interested parties. I
have often resorted to mailing the interested people directly in order
to get their feedback.

Now something has changed. We now have QtQuick.Controls,
QtQuick.Layouts, and QtQuick.Styles so that "components" is no longer
a clear name for those areas. The discussion on the components ML
seemed to suggest either a QtQuick ML which covers all QtQuick (but
not QtQml), or a QtQuickControls ML. Since the QtQuick ML would affect
some users of this ML, I am asking whether it would be acceptable (the
alternative being a QtQuickControls list being created, with more
limited scope, as per the discussion on that thread).

Alan Alpert

More information about the Development mailing list