[Development] Branch request: wip/itemviews in qtdeclarative

Robin Burchell robin.burchell at crimson.no
Sun Jan 15 13:36:49 CET 2017


On Sun, Jan 15, 2017, at 12:24 PM, J-P Nurmi wrote:
> There have been some discussions about rewriting the entire item-view
> framework. I personally believe that would be best done in a major
> release. :)

I guess you're talking about the generic positioner-based view stuff
here, but I wasn't thinking quite so ambitious. That is indeed one thing
that is still bouncing around my head, but I suspect it will stay there
for some time more :)

More generally, I don't disagree that such a thing would be a major
version change, or at least, done in a separate import. Anyway, I'll try
write a longer mail about some of my thoughts on this stuff so they have
a place in the public record, split off from this thread, as it is
definitely a bit of a tangent.

> +1 to having a branch for it (do you have a name in mind? wip/itemviews?
> wip/tableview?)
> I was thinking wip/itemviews, but I don’t mind wip/tableview either. :)

If your specific goal here is to provide enablers for tableview, then
I'd go for wip/tableview.

> Having more branches could be an option. All the tasks are somehow
> connected to each other, though, so I was thinking that it might be
> easiest to do it all in the same branch to avoid excessive conflicts and
> merging between multiple WIP-branches. The last two, SortFilterProxyModel
> and TreeModelAdaptor, would be the most logical ones to split to separate
> branches, but on the other hand, they also need to be implemented so that
> they play well with the rest.

Yes, that's pretty much the sort of division I was thinking; and
especially if Pierre-Yves can help with contributing on the SFPM part,
perhaps that's a good candidate for doing "separately". I understand and
agree with the need for unity, of course, but perhaps communication can
help to some degree there. Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I'll leave
the "how" to you people, you know the details of this work better than I

> There’s so much to do that there is no way we could make all this happen
> before the 5.9 feature freeze in two weeks. :)

Text doesn't quite convey the emotion I meant that statement to evoke
;-); but I guess then you're thinking something like 5.11 (potentially
earlier, if the planets align correctly)? Again, I'm not expecting
promises here, just a rough idea would be a help so I can know when I
need to start trying to pay closer attention to anything touching the

Thanks again.

  Robin Burchell
  robin at crimson.no

More information about the Development mailing list