[Development] QtFluentMQ

[Volker Hilsheimer]

> On 26 Aug 2023, at 10:09, Ulf Hermann via Development <development at qt-project.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The usual way to request a repository, playground or not, is a mail like this:
> 
> https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2022-August/042900.html
> 
> If the request is not totally outlandish it's usually granted, possibly after some bike shedding over the name and location.
> 
> AFAIR we haven't bike shedded over the commercial value of a new repository, the architecture of the code it shall hold, or its licensing before. I don't think we need to.
> 
> You should fill in at least the basic information, though: name and description, responsible person, and desired location.
> 
> At least sometimes, we have used the lazy consensus mechanism for repository requests in the past. This seems a good idea to me. I will +1 this one if the (still missing) basics are reasonable.
> 
> We can still discuss the way to integrate with the rest of Qt once we can see some code.


It’s good to understand the ambitions and state of the project when deciding the location of the repo, hence my questions. From what I read about the state in particular, a repository in the playground/ namespace seems to make more sense than starting under qt/ and adding this to the qt5.git super repository immediately, as our wiki page suggests it should.

So if team QtFluentMQ can provide the missing bits of information, then we can just go ahead with this if no-one objects.


Cheers,
Volker