[Development] PROPOSAL: merge #qt-qml and #qt-components to #qt-quick

[Nurmi J-P]

On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Alan Alpert <416365416c at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Alan Alpert <416365416c at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I like the idea. For the average user, I definitely think #qt-quick is
> >> a better name. It has a much clearer association, due to users
> >> importing QtQuick and QtQuick.Controls in every file.
> >
> >
> > OK, so you want a QtQuick channel, not QML, so dealing with the C++ API as
> > well, et cetera. I did not get that intention from the initial mail, but
> > then it is fine. By the way, it is slower to type as it is a few characters
> > more ... ;) :)
> 
> The C++ API does (and has) come up occasionally, even in #qt-qml. But
> realistically most people use the QML APIs (especially for
> QtQuick.Controls ;) ).
> 
> Size doesn't matter, as everyone should auto-join it :P .
> 
> >>
> >> And non-quick QML users won't get lost as badly (I once saw a Cascades
> >> user in
> >> #qt-qml, and no-one could help him :( . #qt-qnx is a better channel
> >> for Cascades-QML
> >
> >
> > Actually, I think #blackberrydev is even better as Cascades-QML is more
> > Blackberry specific rather than upstream Qt. My practical experience shows
> > that, too.
> 
> Ah, I'm only on #qt-qnx.
> 
> >>
> >> I would like to have a separate #qt-qml channel for the language
> >> issues (which are more working on the language than working with
> >> anyways), but that's not realistic because users can't always tell the
> >> difference. So maybe once the new #qt-quick channel is fully
> >> established and #qt-qml is empty, we can reclaim it. Or the
> >> language/engine development channel can have a more technical name to
> >> hide it from the average user. That second channel is less important,
> >> so it can wait for a later discussion, and QML language development
> >> chat can always go to #qt-labs until then.
> >
> >
> > Yes, that is what I wanted to raise as well, #qt-labs is fine for now IMHO,
> > I agree.
> 
> PS: Perhaps you meant reply-all?
> 
> Yes, I did. Apologies. I am still struggling with the new gmail interface at times. ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Laszlo 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Based on the feedback so far, I'd suggest we start with migrating #qt-components to #qt-quick. Jens, do you approve?

--
J-P Nurmi