On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:07:06 Daniel Teske wrote: > > Are we going to announce every API change on the ML now? > > No, that is obviously stupid. But, could you please stop trying to divert a > discussion by raising unrelated questions? > > If a change is related to a discussion on the mailing list, I expect that > the change is posted to the discussion.
I already quoted you the mail where I ... > Because not doing that, circumvents the discussion on the mailing list and > goes against the spirit of The Qt Governance Model. > > You circumvented the discussion and did not inform the mailing list on the > changes, which clearly were related: > https://codereview.qt-project.org/115376 ... shared this ^ change on the ML. Now you _again_ claim I didn't. > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/120771 > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/120804/ These just implement what was discussed on the ML. Again: no-one spoke out against the solution Thiago and I came up with (publicly on the ML). I posted one change, I didn't post them all, no. They contain no new information. I have a few dozen of changes (re)adding move semantics to Qt types. Do you want to see them all? I can CC you from now on on Gerrit. I doubt everyone else will want to be spammed on the ML. > In my opinion this is unprofessional. Then I guess I'm unprofessional. You got what you lobbied for. What, exactly, are you complaining about? Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
