On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:11:52PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > You still don't get it. All your arguments including this one and that > in your other mail are based on the assumption that there were only > two alternatives: full support or removal from trunk. Under this > premise I agree completely with the removal, but that is not what has > been requested. > > There was a third alternative that would have solved almost all > problems: Keep it in trunk (with no obligation of anyone to touch it), > and let those who care do the work to keep it up to date. With that > alternative all your arguments are moot.
No. Because even without obligation most people still would have tried to to put stuff in both frontends - even if they had no real interest in the qt3 frontend - just because they try to be nice. And those resources would not have been available anymore for other work. 1.5 was the first release in a decade that had lots of new GUI stuff. Releases form 0.10 on or so before 1.5 had much smaller GUI changes, and that's not just changes for the sake of changes but as real improvement. I am pretty sure some of this would not have happened if multiple frontends had stayed around. > That alternative would of course not have guaranteed that 1.5.0 would be > released with qt3. Maybe it would indeed have been too much work to keep it > up to date, and it would have been abandoned, but this would then have been > the decision of _those who where doing the work_. You miss the point that we do not have unlimited resources. If qt3 lived on for a while and had been killed later even more resources would have gone to the kitchen sink. > What happened instead is that _you_ dictated that those should stop or > jump through some extra hoops. And you haven't been in Greve to prevent it... Andre'
