[Development] qtchooser (was: Re: Adding new third party component three.js to Qt?)

[Kevin Kofler]

Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Unanimity was not required. Only consensus and that was achieved. The
> requests for renaming were argued and heard (I argued for them myself, I
> even prepared patches and had the solution in progress) but in the end the
> consensus was another way. Now everyone, including me, has to abide by
> that decision, unless there's new relevant information that didn't exist
> then. You haven't presented any new information.

Of course I have. I pointed out several fatal flaws inherent to qtchooser's 
design, for which the only fix is to drop qtchooser entirely.

> Once again: I argued against it in 2011-2012, but you don't see me
> rebelling against that now.

It was a mistake that you didn't fight harder.

I also see how it happened: You were convinced that it was possible to solve 
the problem in a different way (qtchooser) and so accepted to implement 
that. Unfortunately, that implementation does not fulfill the distributions' 
actual requirements, so we are back to square one.

Now I'll also take some blame, because I was aware of several issues with 
qtchooser right back when it was introduced (but not all, e.g., I didn't 
know about the multilib thing), I voiced my dissent in several places (at 
least #fedora-kde IRC and the Fedora kde mailing list) and was trying to get 
others (mainly Rex Dieter and Sune Vuorela) to forward my objections 
(basically the ones I wrote down in this thread) to you, but this never 
happened (they wanted me to sign up to this mailing list and post them 
myself), and I didn't want to go through the usual lengthy subscription 
process (subscribe in mailman, act on the confirmation mail, disable mail 
delivery, subscribe the Gmane gateway to Knode, send the message, reply to 
Gmane's confirmation mail) just for that.

        Kevin Kofler