On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40:16PM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On quarta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2013 22:30:28, André Pönitz wrote: > > One point that seems to be missing in these considerations is a clearly > > communicated distinction between "actual state" and "intended state". > > > > The use of "Tier" currently sems to close to "actual" state, and "reference > > platform" close to "intended" state. Unfortunately, that's not fully > > aligned with the expectations of an unsuspecting observer, at least not > > with mine, as a non-native speaker. > > There's is no intended state. > > There are platforms that the Qt project requires contributors to work on, > which are defined per module. > > Each platform will receive a tier "certification" at release time, based on > what testing gets done at that release time.
So "Tier" is "actual" state (which I personally find a rather odd association, but certainly "good enough" if stated clearly in prominent places) And half of the problem is unsolved. From a Qt user's perspective there's quite some difference between "Tier 2 - happens to work now, but is left to rot and die" and "Tier 2 - intended to be Tier 1, but fumbled at the latest release" when trying to judge whether Qt will be suitable for his product. > The Tier levels are for users to know what they can rely on: does Qt work on > that platform and can I count on it to continue working in the medium term. This "medium term" perspective contradicts what you stated above about "at release time". As I said, "actual" and "intended" should be separated, and communicated. _Clearly_. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development