Hi,
Let’s look into what kind of additional systems we could arrange that helps
development of Qbs. Just now everyone is busy getting Qt 6.2 and QDS 2.2
successfully released, but we should be able to look into this latest in the
beginning of October.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Development <[email protected]> on behalf of Denis
Shienkov <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 15. September 2021 at 13.59
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Hi Lars, Tuukka,
> I also would very much like you to stay here.
AFAIK, a main issue here not about of maintenance behaviour. A main issue in
the access right on the Qbs project. F.e. right now it is hard to maintenance
the CI integration with the GitHub, to generate the pre-compiled releases and
other stuff (maybe Ivan can explain a betetr).
Also, a main issue is for the CI for the bare-metal toolchains, where we need
to use the self-runners instead of Docker containers (there are impossible to
use the dockers).
So, if you want to be Qbs stayed in the QtCompany infrastructure, then you need
to help us a bit, e.g. provide some separate server resources (e.g. two VMs
with Linux && Windows OS installed) where we can setup all required stuff to
work with CI. ;)
Because right now I use own host PC as self-runner for CI, what is very bad and
non-stable approach. ;)
BR, Denis
15.09.2021 13:32, Lars Knoll пишет:
Hi Ivan,
I also would very much like you to stay here. QBS is great project and
something that came out of the Qt work and still has very strong ties to it.
I am fully with Tuukka that what we want is to make it a good experience and
easy for people to work here in the project. Blocking other peoples work is
certainly not in line with this.
The governance model has the ’no confidence’ clause for a reason and if you
have tried other means before, I can and will of course arrange such a vote.
Cheers,
Lars
On 15 Sep 2021, at 12:18, Tuukka Turunen
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
I would not like Qbs development to move away from the Qt project. It is very
unfortunate that you have had bad experience and misbehavior from one approver.
We want to constantly improve the experience of working within the Qt project
and naturally this kind of incidents are not doing that. Therefore, it is very
good that you have raised the topic in the mailing list, as many were not aware
of it earlier. On the positive side, I do not think there is any general
hostility towards Qbs within the Qt projects – on the contrary I can see a lot
of good co-operation.
Yours,
Tuukka
From: Development
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
on behalf of Иван Комиссаров <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
To: Lars Knoll <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Qt development mailing list
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance Model
by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our Discord server and the
community overall seems positive - there were several votes for the migration
and no votes against. This migration might be healthy to Qbs as a lot of
newcomers are not familiar with Gerrit but familiar with GitHub and it’s
pull-request model.
Also, it will clearly separate who can approve/reject patches to Qbs and to the
rest of Qt world.
If there are no objections, I will create an INFRA issue about the migration -
it should not be very hard to do.
Ivan
14 сент. 2021 г., в 17:33, Lars Knoll
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> написал(а):
Hi,
Let’s also take up the formal part of the request.
On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening in the future - if
technically possible, I’d like to request the revoke of his approver rights on
the Qbs project as per this part of the Qt Governance Model:
«In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked by a vote of no
confidence, proposed by an existing Approver or Maintainer and arranged by the
Chief Maintainer. Privilege revocation requires a two-thirds majority vote of
those Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» [3]
On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The question is whether this is an abuse of approver rights.
This is a relevant question for the Qt project. Any person with approver
rights has the ability to cause a production stop. Ivan is asking for help
in this particular case and I am seconding his request.
Ivan and Richard, do I understand you correctly that you’d like to have a
formal vote of no confidence according to QUIP-2? Please understand that this
clause is meant as a last resort, when other solutions have failed.
We will also need to consider that the Qt Governance Model only defines global
Approver rights for all of the Qt Project. The request was however limited to
QBS, so we would need to find a way to handle this. I can only see two options
there, either we start extending our governance model here (can be done with a
lazy consensus on that extension), or change the scope to the whole project
having much more severe implications.
Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also like to hear your
view on this. As I stated in my previous mail in this thread, I strongly
believe, that the people doing the actual work decide on the direction and
individual changes. The Governance model states the same, the maintainer takes
the decision in case no agreement can be reached. As far as I can see, your
actions are conflicting with this.
Thank you,
Lars
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
