[PySide] PySide is Dead?

Stephan Deibel sdeibel at wingware.com
Fri Dec 14 15:34:36 CET 2012

> I've been lurking on the discussion and while I don't have much 
> time/energy or practical skills to contribute in the future 
> development, I find it thrilling that plans for the project future are 
> being made.
> I think it's alarming, though, that the project facilities (JIRA has 
> been mentioned several times) obstruct rather than support development 
> work. Ensuring project momentum should be the first priority when 
> picking the tools and surroundings to work in.
> Assuming that there has been no practical synergy benefits with 
> sharing the same bugtracker with Qt Project, I don't see why any other 
> bugtracker couldn't be used for the project (as long as someone is 
> happy to take over the hosting and maintenance responsibilities). Same 
> goes with other facilities as well.
> If a switch from Gerrit to e.g. GitHub would take place, however, 
> that'd imply a bigger separation from Qt Project itself (due to 
> licensing issues). If you want to do that, I'd warmly recommend having 
> first a discussion with Lars Knoll and esp. Digia's Tuukka Turunen to 
> ensure that they have no objections or alternative proposals. Digia 
> might still be interested in providing commercial support or licenses 
> for PySide, and moving away from Gerrit would prevent them from doing 
> that. Still, even that's just a decision to be made, if the core 
> contributors feel the current Gerrit setup is counterproductive for 
> the project purposes. But at least discuss first with Qt Project and 
> Digia...

Yes, this should certainly be done if a move is considered.  However, 
I'm not sure if the tools are really the main sticking point right now.  
It might rather be a combination of the tools and lack of active 
developers w/ the necessary access rights and/or knowledge to see 
something through a code review.

For example, while there was a lot of general discussion on the list 
recently there's been no reply that I know of to John's email about a 
specific problem and proposed solution:


I see two new items in the code review system related to this:


As you can see, Hugo is still listed as a required reviewer which 
presumably needs to change -- but to whom?

One idea is for people to use our experimental shiboken and pyside 
repositories listed in John's email above to see if problems are found.

- Stephan

More information about the PySide mailing list