> On 5 Apr 2017, at 12:37, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:24:15AM +0000, Mitch Curtis wrote: >> So, should this get its own module, and if so, can widgets depend on >> it? >> > an own module just for that seems over the top - i don't think we want > to end up with 100 micro-libraries. > > however, splitting up qtcore has been raised multiple times, and > putting this into one of the resulting libs would seem reasonable. for > example, this seems conceptually quite related to item models. possibly > also state machine. and animation. these are all things which initially > elicit a "huh, this is core?" response, until you think a bit about it. > GuiSupport may be a better name for it (i'm sure some will disagree).
So both QtCore and QtGui could be split up into “Core” and “Kitchen Sink”; QtCoreCore QtGuiCore QtCoreSink QtGuiSink QtWidgets and QtDeclarative would depend on all of these; are we gaining anything? Well: 1) The “Core” versions will be satisfyingly uncluttered. 2) Those who do not use QtWidgets or QtDeclarative can possibly depend on smaller libraries. > > also, a plan for splitting up qtbase wouldn't be entirely off the mark. > untangling tests and examples would be the major effort here. (At the risk of derailing the discussion (sorry Mitch)) No, we should follow Google and Facebook’s lead: large monolithic repos (as large as the infrastructure can handle), which can be updated atomically. Morten _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
