[Development] Build system for Qt 6

[Simon Hausmann]

I agree, this is often the case.

I just wanted to emphasize that I think it’s too early to conclude that llvm is going to switch to gn based on that email. It’s convenient to quote what adds fuel to the fire of this discussion. Hence my attempt to add water by quoting what I thought it still relevant.

Simon

> On 1. Nov 2018, at 12:14, André Pönitz <apoenitz at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 08:34:34AM +0000, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>> 
>>> From the same email perhaps it's also worth quoting the first paragraph:
>> "
>> 
>> first things first: If you're happy with cmake, you can stop reading now.
>> Nobody is proposing that LLVM moves off cmake, and nobody is proposing
>> anything that's causing people using cmake more work.
>> "
> 
> Sure, that's how one approaches larger controversial changes, not just
> in software development, but also general politics:
> 
> 1. Promise that everything is optional, and existing uses won't change,
> and nobody will be affected unless opted-in. This keeps the initial
> outcry a bay. Optionally, start to belittle opposition as inveterate
> nay-sayers, as there is clearly no reason to oppose something people
> do voluntarily.
> 
> 2. Once installed, apply salami tactics by extending the scope of the
> measure, "add value" to the new system, asked for or not, and let the old
> one rot. If needed, little stabs in the back help to speed up the process.
> 
> 3. At some time the new system will indeed be better in some setups than
> the old one, and the opt-in gets opt-out. This is also a good time to
> gauge remaining resistance, and either continue with 2 or directly go
> to 4.
> 
> 4. Sweep remaining issues under the carpet and declare the old system dead.
> 
> 
> As I said, that's nothing specific to LLVM and Cmake.
> 
> The pattern to message "Nobody has any intention to do X" while planning
> or even already executing X is so widely used that in the presence of
> such a statement it is safer to assume that this is just stage 1 of the
> process above than to accept the statement at face value.
> 
> Andre'
>