> I've been lurking on the discussion and while I don't have much > time/energy or practical skills to contribute in the future > development, I find it thrilling that plans for the project future are > being made. > > I think it's alarming, though, that the project facilities (JIRA has > been mentioned several times) obstruct rather than support development > work. Ensuring project momentum should be the first priority when > picking the tools and surroundings to work in. > > Assuming that there has been no practical synergy benefits with > sharing the same bugtracker with Qt Project, I don't see why any other > bugtracker couldn't be used for the project (as long as someone is > happy to take over the hosting and maintenance responsibilities). Same > goes with other facilities as well. > > If a switch from Gerrit to e.g. GitHub would take place, however, > that'd imply a bigger separation from Qt Project itself (due to > licensing issues). If you want to do that, I'd warmly recommend having > first a discussion with Lars Knoll and esp. Digia's Tuukka Turunen to > ensure that they have no objections or alternative proposals. Digia > might still be interested in providing commercial support or licenses > for PySide, and moving away from Gerrit would prevent them from doing > that. Still, even that's just a decision to be made, if the core > contributors feel the current Gerrit setup is counterproductive for > the project purposes. But at least discuss first with Qt Project and > Digia...
Yes, this should certainly be done if a move is considered. However, I'm not sure if the tools are really the main sticking point right now. It might rather be a combination of the tools and lack of active developers w/ the necessary access rights and/or knowledge to see something through a code review. For example, while there was a lot of general discussion on the list recently there's been no reply that I know of to John's email about a specific problem and proposed solution: http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/2012-December/000877.html I see two new items in the code review system related to this: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#q,status:open+pyside,n,z As you can see, Hugo is still listed as a required reviewer which presumably needs to change -- but to whom? One idea is for people to use our experimental shiboken and pyside repositories listed in John's email above to see if problems are found. - Stephan _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
