To me the most invasive Qtism is qmake. When can we get rid of that?
-Fil > On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:50 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <k...@carewolf.com> wrote: > >> On Monday 30 September 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote: >>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <k...@carewolf.com> >>> wrote: >>> Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It >>> may never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKit with anything >>> Blink/Chromium based. >> >> I really don’t understand this, there are only two options: >> 1. Qt Webkit is critical to you and you want to support and maintain it, >> and do all the work necessary for that; or 2. Qt WebKit is not critical, >> and so you could simply branch and have a permanent stable release >> platform similar to what the S60 port did years ago. >> >> Currently you seem to be arguing for a third option, wherein all of the >> WebKit developers need to deal with your port, and be hamstrung by the >> numerous invasive Qt-isms scattered throughout the codebase, for a port >> that isn’t considered critical to its own platform. > Actually I am arguing we should get rid of most of the invasive Qt'ism unless > they are really required for Qt WebKit to even work. Many of them were only > necessary due to having to support so many platforms. With a more narrow > focus > we can hopefully get rid of 90% of the burden. If it turns out not to be > possible in the end, we can always leave after having helped as far as we > could. > > Best regards > `Allan > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev