The Technical Working Group's mission statement

[Michael Pyne]

On Tuesday 14 March 2006 14:42, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 March 2006 21:32, Jaison Lee wrote:
> > > - I don't want that if an important decision - which affects KDE in
> > > general - is made that kde-core-devel to be left out (at list
> > > inform here and redirect to the discussion thread)
> >
> > OK. But at least please explain how what Thiago did just now is not
> > acceptable. If you are only interested in results and no details,
> > then having a major contributor come out and say "cmake kicked scons
> > butt and I'm about to remove the SConstruct files entirely" should be
> > sufficient info.
>
> Assuming that there was a real TWG decision (which we know there wasn't)
> Thiago would have made the mistake that he throws a sentence that "it
> was decided that cmake was used". No backup when, where and who
> decided.
>
> What he did wrong right now was that he presented his opinion in a way
> one could thought that was the TWG's opinion.
>
> And if you look, I'm not the only one who questioned this statement.

Yes, but I think the fact that Thiago and others have mentioned that we have 
no real alternative is explanatory enough.

I was rooting for scons myself but the difference is that scons support was 
being added by 2 or 3 devs it seemed, all of whom have not enough free time.  
Whereas with cmake we even have the cmake developers bending over backwards 
to change cmake as needed to build KDE.  And we have already agreed at last 
aKademy that we want to get rid of libtool and automake.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20060314/34da1feb/attachment.sig>