On Tuesday, 6 de September de 2011 10:10:15 Samuel Rødal wrote: > I guess the question is what you're comparing to. The plan is to remove > all non-lighthouse backends by Qt 5, and in that regard the refactor > branch is mostly on par or better than the master branch (the master > branch doesn't even have the windows plugin). > > However, if you compare the windows plugin in the refactor branch to the > non-lighthouse windows backend in the master branch the latter is > definitely more stable at the moment.
Right, that's what I am comparing to.
Suppose I produce a very, very fast QUrl implementation using Intel
intrinsics, but no ARM code, then I say "please merge this as KDE developers
need to get started porting", it wouldn't be accepted, would it? My employer
might be happy though...
And here's where I'm getting at: I'd like to make absolutely sure that Qt 5.0
runs on the desktops, not that it's a second thought, bolted on. I've heard,
in public and private discussions, comments going from desktops are not being
focus to outright discarding of desktop support for Qt 5, keeping Qt Creator
on Qt 4.
So yes, I am going out in defence of the desktops, creating opposition as in
"you don't get dessert until you eat dinner".
I want to apply the rules we've all had for years, like the "Rule of 3
implementations", the quality acceptance, or simply "it works as intended".
And to be clear: I'm not opposed to the merging, provided we all understand
it's an exception and we get some form of commitment from the people working
on this that they will work on what's left RealSoonNow™.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
