[Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Christian Stenger]

>There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do

You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not ready for more than a playground.

________________________________________
From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Aleksey Kontsevich <tantrido at ya.ru>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 1:03:55 PM
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Lars Knoll; Thiago Macieira
Cc: Qt development mailing list
Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

>That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing actions to fix these.

There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.

--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in  https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich



17.01.2019, 10:22, "Maurice Kalinowski" <maurice.kalinowski at qt.io>:
> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part of Qt or not, no?
>
> We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
>
> “This decision is done on the qt-development mailing list, based on the technical and spirit fit to Qt, and it requires the approval of the Chief Maintainer.”
>
> To my knowledge this has not happened at all. There was only a repository request so far, none for integrating it into the product line.
>
> That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing actions to fix these.
>
> Maurice
>
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of Lars Knoll
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM
> To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> Cc: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org>
> Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer
>
>> On 16 Jan 2019, at 19:54, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:44:40 PST Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>>
>>> In Nov, there was long discussion in review:
>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/240347/ Request was initially for
>>> both: plugin and library - latter was transformed to Qt module.
>>
>> Given that this is a complete surprise, I don't think we can find enough time
>> to do a review of it as a module in time for 5.13.
>
> As far as I understood it the request was for a TP status, not a fully supported module.
>
>> In particular, I want to
>> take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working on:
>>  https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/concepts/telemetry-about
>
> Why should that project influence a telemetry module for Qt?
>
>> So I think that for 5.13, the module can be at no higher state than
>> experimental. That will allow getting API reviews and testing by others.
>
> See above, I don’t think anything else was being asked for.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Lars
>
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development