[Development] FileRe: Move ctors for q_declare_shared types

[Daniel Teske]

> > If a change is related to a discussion on the mailing list, I expect that
> > the change is posted to the discussion.
> 
> I already quoted you the mail where I ...
> 
> > Because not doing that, circumvents the discussion on the mailing list and
> > goes against the spirit of The Qt Governance Model.
> > 
> > You circumvented the discussion and did not inform the mailing list on the
> > changes, which clearly were related:
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/115376
> 
> ... shared this ^ change on the ML. Now you _again_ claim I didn't.

I never claimed that you didn't share this change. Also I mentioned that 
change exactly once so far. Can you please not grossly misrepresent what I 
actually wrote?

I wrote and this is from the only mail in which I mention that change, and I 
hope you read it this time:
"You circumvented the discussion and did not inform the mailing list on the 
changes:"

You only informed the mailing list on that change after it was already in the 
repository. You didn't wait until the discussion came to a conclusion. If you 
would have posted that change for discussion, I would have pointed out the how 
broken that change is without a change to the container classes.

I stand by my point, you circumvented the discussion on the mailing list.

> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/120771
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/120804/
> 
> These just implement what was discussed on the ML. Again: no-one spoke out
> against the solution Thiago and I came up with (publicly on the ML). 
> I posted one change, I didn't post them all, no. They contain no new
> information. 
I was under the impression that you wanted to not fix the container classes at 
all. Can you quote me the mail on the mailing list where you or Thiago propose 
and agree on fixing the container classes? 

> I have a few dozen of changes (re)adding move semantics to Qt
> types. Do you want to see them all? I can CC you from now on on Gerrit. I
> doubt everyone else will want to be spammed on the ML.
Again, and I'm not sure why this is complicated for you to understand:

A change that is related to a ongoing discussion on the mailing list, should 
be discussed on the mailing list. You shouldn't create hard facts by pushing a 
change.

> > In my opinion this is unprofessional.
> 
> Then I guess I'm unprofessional.
> 
> You got what you lobbied for. What, exactly, are you complaining about?
Your unprofessional behaviour. I thought I made clear that I'm fine with the 
fixes in Qt.

daniel