Stupid mail interface! This should have gone to the list. ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- Von: christian.lo...@hamburg.de An: "Alan Alpert" Cc: Gesendet: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:45:30 +0200 Betreff: Re: [Opengov] Idea: Qt Community Contributions Module ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- >Von: "Alan Alpert" .alp...@nokia.com>
>On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:14:05 ext christian.lo...@hamburg.de [1] wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> Sorry if the following idea was already brought up. I couldn’t find >> anything about it in the archive. >> >> Proposal: >> I like to propose the creation of a new Qt 5 module: Qt Community >> Contributions (QtContribs) It should contain classes that are maintained >> by the “non-Nokia” community and the barrier for new code should be lower. >> > There shouldn't be a distinction between the "Nokia" and "non-Nokia" parts of >the community. That's the whole point of Open Governance IMHO - code is judged >on merit, not on company affiliation. But where should code go that the community sees as valuable addition but is rejected by the Qt maintainer based on the maintenance status of the module? An example would be a QAnchorLayout class for the Qt Widget module: http://lists.qt.nokia.com/pipermail/qt5-feedback/2011-June/000389.html > Non-Trolls are capable of writing quality code too you know. I *do* know that since I was part of KDE a long time ago and I don't think that I said or implied something in that direction. Actually I would like to see that quality code shipped with Qt even if the community ("non-trolls") are not yet capable of overtaking maintainership of certain modules like Qt widgets That is partly what my proposal is about. Christian Links: ------ [1] mailto:christian.lo...@hamburg.de
_______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
