[Development] Requesting a repository for Qt Interface Framework Reference APIs

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

Thiago is right, we can change the name as the module technically is not part of Qt release (https://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/6.6/6.6.1/submodules/).

That said, we can also decide not to change the name. Like mentioned by Dominik, it has existing since a while with the current name (https://doc.qt.io/QtInterfaceFramework/) and repository (https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtinterfaceframework.git/). Initially it had a different name, so the current one is already a new name, which is probably better than the initial at least.

So the question is what should this module be called, if it would be renamed? And another question, is it feasible to implement the renaming at this point?

Moving the proposed items out from it to labs modules makes sense to me. The naming of labs modules should then be aligned with the new naming of the module.

Yours,

                Tuukka

From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 19:06
To: development at qt-project.org <development at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Development] Requesting a repository for Qt Interface Framework Reference APIs
On Tuesday, 5 December 2023 08:54:29 PST Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Then why are you asking for a repository if it's already there? When was
> that module approved by the Qt Project? I can't find anything in the email
> archives.
>
> The first commit in this repository is "First version of the QtGeniviExtras
> module". When was it renamed and who approved it?

This module was requested at
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2015-August/022859.html

There were no objections. Tuukka said it's a good idea to have the modules
even if they aren't part of the released packages:

> I think it is fine to create the requested repo for new module. Depending on
> the need it can then either be included or not be included in the release
> packages.

That would explain why this isn't in the qt5.git/.gitmodules.

But I said:

> I am, however, questioning the design of the API that Dominik presented.

There have been zero other discussions of "genivi" since then
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgenivi%2Bsite%25253Ahttps%25253A%25252F%25252Flists.qt-project.org%25252Fpipermail%25252Fdevelopment%25252F&data=05%7C01%7Ctuukka.turunen%40qt.io%7Cc5d9d74e44014c5e22c308dbf5b48c59%7C20d0b167794d448a9d01aaeccc1124ac%7C0%7C0%7C638373928019928582%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r0fpIXCgLTyWGtC9bIJ9waV7QgvH6J%2FnwRLJ%2BZMPL9k%3D&reserved=0<https://www.google.com/search?q=genivi+site%253Ahttps%253A%252F%252Flists.qt-project.org%252Fpipermail%252Fdevelopment%252F>

I don't know what kind of API reviews have been done since. But there has been
no discussion about renaming this module. Therefore, the name it is currently
using is unauthorised and does not imply a precedent.

-1 on this new module with this name.


--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20231207/b85b1019/attachment.htm>