[Qt-creator] Creator segmentation faults becoming common...

[Glenn Tarbox, PhD]

2009/7/8 Thorbjørn Lindeijer <thorbjorn.lindeijer at nokia.com>

> ...
> >
> > One thing is becoming clear.  The fact that there is a legal barrier
> > which effectively removes the bulk of the Qt development from group
> > participation is going to greatly limit Qt's evolution into a true
> > open-source project.  That Qt rocks will carry it a long way, perhaps it
> > will even dominate... but it will be less than it could be.
>
> I don't understand why you think the "legal barrier" prevents group
> participation. With individuals as well as teams being able to set up
> their own clones on gitorious.org and requests merges once they have
> something ready, what still stands in the way of group participation in
> Qt development?
>
> Isn't this pretty much the pull model also used by the Kernel, btw? The
> main difference is that instead of one messiah and a bunch of disciples,
> we have over 100 trolls used to being on equal footing. As such, a
> hierarchical development model is at the moment no natural fit for Qt.


I guess the difference is that while there exists a hierarchy of control
with the disciples and the Pope in Linux Kernel development, all the work is
public.  You can pull from Linus's repo at any time (and its mirrored).
Certain branches are formal which are then used by the testing teams etc.
Linus jokes that he doesn't need to back up because if he had a data loss
he'd just pull from somebody's clone

For Qt, the bulk of current development isn't visible and brings side
effects like the "push" to gitorious.  It also precludes the formation of
tightly synchronized teams with non-Nokia members.

Having said all this, I realize we're at the early "coming out" stage of Qt
and everything takes time.  Linux started out public and git was a reaction
to the inherently broken CVS / SVN model.  In time, my guess is Qt will
embrace a more open development approach as it makes sense for all the
obvious reasons.

Also, Qt can rightly say that "we've been doing OK, thank you very much" as
the result speaks for itself... Cudos.  I'm merely saying that it could be
better, not that it isn't great stuff.

Kind of a shame it wasn't possible to do this earlier as we could have
avoided gtk altogether.... gonna take many years to cleanse the system of
that madness.

-glenn


>
> Regards,
> Bjørn
>
> --
> Thorbjørn Lindeijer
> Software Engineer
> Nokia, Qt Software
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator at trolltech.com
> http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
>



-- 
Glenn H. Tarbox, PhD ||  206-274-6919
http://www.tarbox.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-creator-old/attachments/20090708/b683e027/attachment.html