On Thursday 25 March 2010 00:46:46 King Bill (Nokia-D-Qt/Brisbane) wrote:
> Bringing this over here as was requested ;)
> I was just criticized for criticizing the quality of creator ("on the
> basis of one bug report").
>
> I thought we were an open company, part of that is being open to
> criticism when things are not working.
>
> Creator mainline is not working.
There is no promise (and never has been) that Creator master branch
works (including even the weirdest definitions of "works"...)
If you want something that is known to compile, use a released version.
We are happy about anybody actually using master and notifying us about
any breakage but there's no guarantee whatsoever that it does anything
useful. We are doing our best to fix breakages quickly, though, and so far
I had the impression that readers of this list and people on IRC find this
concept both comprehensible and acceptable.
> I have reports both from internal and external users on a regular
> basis of either creator not building, or creator crashing upon startup.
Startup crashes are most of the time caused by unclean builds.
git clean -dxf && qmake -r && make && tons of coffee && be done.
That's not the main problem here. The first problem is that people seem
to send their reports about Qt Creator to you and not to us, and the
second is that even then those reports do not end up, say, here on the
mailing list or in JIRA (barring the current incident).
> I have pushed the externals to submit bugreports,
Good. Chances to get stuff fixed are way better with a decent bug report.
> but, again, my experience here has been less than glowing.
Mind to elaborate? As in "your favourite bug has not been fixed the
next day"? In that case, honestly, I'd have a hard time to feign surprise.
> Being close to the front lines of the project, sometimes this can be missed.
>
> To fix these issues, can we implement some sort of staging/CI system
> like we have for Qt?
Is that what you really want?
No integrations for a fortnight because some test broke?
I guess that would quickly yield pretty dry blood at the bleeding edge.
You can certainly setup a "really stable" branch guarded by CI if you
think this helps, but we basically have that in form of releases.
> For qml usage, bleeding edge is the only choice currently, and the
> perceived quality of creator from the bleeding edgers is that
> creator's... not usable at all. That is not the Qt way, and not a
> perception we should be having. Creator is an excellent product, and one
> I use daily, and I'd like to go back to bleeding edge, as that's where
> all the cool new features are :)
It's not a perception I have either. I see Creator master branch used in
"production" outside the company basically daily, and while there are days
when one regrets the pull and has to back up it usually work. This is not
using QML, though, but application startup is most certainly covered.
So back to business: If you have an issue, mention it on #qt-creator
or file a bug.
Andre'
_______________________________________________
Qt-creator mailing list
Qt-creator@trolltech.com
http://lists.trolltech.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
