qtphonon's status.

Fri May 18 11:43:18 BST 2012

On 5/18/12 12:02 PM, "ext Stephen Kelly" <stephen.kelly at kdab.com<mailto:stephen.kelly at kdab.com>> wrote:

On Friday, May 18, 2012 08:41:13 marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com<mailto:marius.storm-olsen at nokia.com> wrote:

> We did promise a minimal migration path from Qt 4 to Qt 5, and removing

> the phonon module from qt5.git, with no easy way of compiling up the

> current upstream phonon with Qt 5 goes against this promise.

It hasn't received any attention so far though, has it? Maybe phonon can be part of that promise in Qt 5.1.

Right, no attention from us and no attention from the phonon developers, at least with respect for Qt 5 end-users. So, by it receiving 'attention' from us now by simply removing the old "fork"  from the repo, it would only hurt the end-user, making it harder for them to migrate over to Qt 5.

> That's why I

> think we should keep it, until upstream has given a clear message of how

> to proceed for Qt 5 users of phonon. (1. What their direction is, 2.

> Migration path for Qt 4 users, 3. Build instructions for Qt 5 users on all

> T1 platforms, etc)

The only problematic part in your list is (1). In the absence of any other plans, I'm sure we'll just end up with a simple port to Qt 5 with no API change.

Which is fine really. What I care about is the end-user, and that they can continue as before, with minimal migration needed.

> Until then, at least Qt users can use phonon as is, just like they do in

> Qt 4.

I don't think having two phonons (the old and obsolete copy in Qt and the upstream) is a good idea.

No, two phonons is a terrible idea :) However, it's the better of two evils, were we currently have no migration path from Qt 4 phonon users to the current upstream. Thus, keeping 'compatibility' by keeping the old phonon around is better for the end-user IMO. Expert users can still nuke the qt5.git one, and compile the upstream.

------

On a different matter, Stephen, can you please adjust your MUA to not force a "font-family:'Monospace'; font-size:11pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;" style in the body of your emails? Since most MUAs render the HTML part of emails (my N9 included), the emails look quite terrible, with large fonts, and whitespace on smaller devices. Let my MUA decide on the best fonts to display your emails unless you are sending me a colorful email invite :)

Thanks!

--
.marius
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-multimedia/attachments/20120518/c9aff253/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development