| 1 |
On 12/08/15 00:29, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 11.08.2015 16:30, Michael Palimaka пишет: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> Don't forget that as a project with no special authority, Qt's policy |
| 6 |
>>> remains a suggestion for the vast majority of maintainers. If someone |
| 7 |
>>> wishes to provide support for only one Qt version or abuse their users |
| 8 |
>>> with REQUIRED_USE they are still free to do so. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Not enforcing policies on main tree is a bad thing. If you make policy, |
| 12 |
>> make other maintainers follow it. I am not against consistent policy |
| 13 |
>> that ease life BOTH for developers and users. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> ++ |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think the qt team taking the lead on this makes sense, but this is |
| 18 |
> the sort of thing that just makes sense as a treewide policy. If |
| 19 |
> people don't like their suggested policy they can take it to |
| 20 |
> QA/council/whatever, but it makes more sense to have projects setting |
| 21 |
> standards than having everybody doing their own thing. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I realize this is frustrating and contentious, but I think we're |
| 24 |
> better off hashing this out, and implementing something reasonable, |
| 25 |
> than having a bazillion different conventions that users have to deal |
| 26 |
> with. Usually I prefer maintainer autonomy, but this is just one of |
| 27 |
> those times it doesn't make sense. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Isn't this moving towards a situation that we used GLEP 39 to remove? |
Archives