Thanks a lot, Thiago, you're a diamond. > The definition is somewhat in flux. I think Henry produced some documents and > placed them on the QtDN. > [...] > As for the qt5 repository, it was created as a way for ease transition from > Qt 4. But I'm personally not sure how we should treat it going forward. For > example, the "qtphonon" sub-module makes no sense to continue, as Phonon > building should be done using CMake, not qmake.
The 2 most advertised ones are the product definition (http://developer.qt.nokia.com/groups/qt_contributors_summit/wiki/Qt5ProductDefinition), and Qt 5.0 wiki (http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Qt_5.0), they are certainly informative in general way, but lack some essential details (it's not a reproach, I know it's still a work in progress, no problem there). I'm afraid this may trigger some big discussion on the subject (which is probably good), as it turns out to be about contribution in general. Ben (responsible for QtDeamonService) seems to be in similar position to mine here, and more people might be in the future, so I guess it should be discussed/clarified in detail. Ben put his work into Qt5 repository itself. If every person, including me, is expected to do that, it should be put in clear text somewhere. But, most of the Qt stuff is included in the repo as a git submodule. Now, if that is the desired way of contributing an add-on, then how exactly is anything going to be accepted into Qt? A contributor would have to create his own repository, then add it as a submodule to qt5 clone and request merge of just the git submodule? This will lead to a more "distributed" qt source, as some submodules would not actually reside in qt.gitorious.org/qt. Thinking about it now, I realized it might be a bit too early to ask, as qt-project is still not open. But even a good 'official' hint as to what to expect would be nice, or - if it's not been decided yet internally - a discussion. Which leaves me in a situation, where I still do not know what to do :) I don't want to flood you with more "problematic" merge requests, but make just one, that would be well placed and with good code quality. > They should stay as close as possible to the code itself. The randomness you > see is a result of moving legacy code around. Ok, that's what I've suspected, thanks. Good day to you, sierdzio/ Thomas/ Tomasz/ whatever _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
