Please all fill in the following evaluation about PySide usage/development.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVNa1d3dVpvdFdJV1U3THBxVVk2Tnc6MQ I ask both PySide users and developers to answer the questions, it will take you only a few minutes and helps us to get a better image about the following: - What are your needs regarding the future PySide project - What are your possibilities to help us improving PySide You will immediately see an overview of the results as soon as you finished the survey and in a few days, I will inform the list about the results. Thanks a lot for your help! Aaron > I'm glad about the amount of traffic on the mailing list. Such > discussions are either the end of a project or the beginning of a new > process. Let's hope it's the first step towards the next PySide > generation. The times of describing a problem and waiting for the > solution of the development team are definitely over, so if we want this > project to continue, we have to help ourselves. I think, before deciding > implementation details, we have to stand one step back and answer the > following questions one after the other: > > - What are our goals for PySide? > - Which development team would be available? > - How much money is needed/available? > > With this information, we can decide which of the defined goals are > realistic to implement... > To get, document and archive this information, I created a little > survey. Please do not answer the questions now already, because I would > like to get the feedback of some of you about missing/superfuous questions. > > Could some of you visit the following link and just click "Continue" > until the end, read everything, but not submit or answer anything and > give me some feedback: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dHVNa1d3dVpvdFdJV1U3THBxVVk2Tnc6MQ > > Thanks. Then we can start the official survey tomorrow or so. > > Cheers > Aaron > > > > Am 14.01.2013 19:16, schrieb John Ehresman: >> On 1/14/13 12:18 PM, Fabien Castan wrote: >>> I'm not enthusiastic about a rewrite using swig; it seems to be a lot >>> of >>> work for questionable benefits. >>> >>> The main benefit could be to get a bigger community and concentrate >>> efforts on the binding rules, instead of working on a binding tool. >> I don't think the binding tool as needing a lot of effort. We do need >> more people fixing bugs and improving the binding rules, but that is the >> case with either tool. If we were starting from scratch, I'd think swig >> would be something to look at, but we aren't starting from scratch. >> >>> I think much of the work with PySide is >>> writing a Python binding given the specifics of how Qt works so it's >>> less about using a semi-generic tool such as swiq or shiboken and more >>> about how Qt object lifetime works. >>> >>> Yes, but users also need to bind their own widgets... And your widgets >>> use your core objects... so you need to use the same binding >>> tool everywhere. >>> A generic binding tool could help for that. >> You are correct that users need to either use one binding tool for all >> qt related interfaces or do extra work to use something else. This >> would be true with swig or shiboken or anything else. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> _______________________________________________ >> PySide mailing list >> PySide@qt-project.org >> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > PySide@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
