[Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

[Aleksey Kontsevich]

Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok now. And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic (there was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit keyword for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc. 

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


17.01.2019, 14:19, "Christian Stenger" <christian.stenger at qt.io>:
>> 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