Congratz, you’re fast. (but that’s easy on gitorious, right?) Nokia-sponsored gitorious, to be strict :)

Just 3 most visible dents in your strategy:
1. Consider following the Qt Modularization initiative instead of duplicating the effort:
http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/01/21/status-of-qt-modularization/
2. It’s disputable if you’re proposing improvements. Maybe from some POV. But in the same time “your” version heavily breaks backward compatibility with 4.x series. Thus, it’s throwing out all the software written for Qt so far.
3. Note that in legal terms Qt is a registered trademark, like everything in the legal world including Linux and Firefox.

Do you have any rationale for this? Major objectives for 4.8 include Qt modularization and open governance. I know that people confidence in Nokia is quite low now, but I totally trust the people involved.

At least, it’s a move I would plan for post-4.8 if open governance doesn’t come by then.

Don’t be so fast.

I think that all be OK with Qt and Nokia.

Developing OpenSource on Microsoft’s money. What can be more funnier?

jstaniek wrote:

Congratz, you’re fast. (but that’s easy on gitorious, right?) Nokia-sponsored gitorious, to be strict :)

Just 3 most visible dents in your strategy:
1. Consider following the Qt Modularization initiative instead of duplicating the effort:
http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/01/21/status-of-qt-modularization/
2. It’s disputable if you’re proposing improvements. Maybe from some POV. But in the same time “your” version heavily breaks backward compatibility with 4.x series. Thus, it’s throwing out all the software written for Qt so far.
3. Note that in legal terms Qt is a registered trademark, like everything in the legal world including Linux and Firefox.

1. Yes, I am :)
I know about this and I choosed a different approach of modularisation. The main goal in my case is to rely on 3rd party libraries in implementation of internal parts.
2. Do you think Qt is ideal optimised framework? Did you look under the hood??? Especially QtNetwork or for example QFile?
Qt is the greatest set of tools and libraries for cross-platform development, but it can be even more efficient.
Ofcourse I wont break binary compability with 4.x series – I only change the internal implementation and increase amount of modules, but binary (and by includes) they will be equal to existing ones.
3. Thanks for the tip i will keep that in mind.

Ymilij wrote:

What can be more funnier?

2. Do you think Qt is ideal optimised framework? Did you look under the hood??? Especially QtNetwork or for example QFile?

So, why not contributing with upstream?

peppe wrote:

bq. 2. Do you think Qt is ideal optimised framework? Did you look under the hood??? Especially QtNetwork or for example QFile?

So, why not contributing with upstream?

Yes, this is good idea and may be I will. But first i need to do something, some working libraries, to offer it to upstream.

No, I think the whole point of open governance is discussing Qt future, API design, what goes in and what doesn’t, in a public, meritocratic fashion. Discuss with the trolls, before doing any work. Doing a hard job and then being told “thank you, we just did the same work and better” or “oh, wow, but you don’t support ICC” or “your API is bad, redesign everything” can be very disappointing (OTOH “We want to hire you!” can be very encouraging :-)).

As Qt developer and as part of this community (recently)… I just like to say: IMHO it’s too early to take a decision so important and with so many consequences. Nokia hasn’t stop the Qt route-map and the open governance is coming, so, is this the right time to play our cards? I don’t think so… no yet.

peppe wrote:

No, I think the whole point of open governance is discussing Qt future, API design, what goes in and what doesn’t, in a public, meritocratic fashion. Discuss with the trolls, before doing any work. Doing a hard job and then being told “thank you, we just did the same work and better” or “oh, wow, but you don’t support ICC” or “your API is bad, redesign everything” can be very disappointing (OTOH “We want to hire you!” can be very encouraging :-)).

I agree with the comments that claim it is too early for a fork. I don’t think it will attract the kind of community backing that would be needed to make it a viable project. Also, I think there currently is no real reason to make a fork. Nokia is still pouring effort into Qt, it seems, so why make a fork now? I think the open governance might have a better chance of resulting in a workable situation. If you don’t like the implementation of some of the parts of Qt, you can already create a merge request for a better implementation. If it really is better, I’m sure it will be accepted.

So, good luck, but I will stay with the main (Nokia) version for now.

It’s far too early to make a decision like this. A fork should be a the last resort at the end of a long road, when it is clear that collaboration will not work out. Look at the folks of OpenOffice/LibreOffice, this was nothing which was decided in two or three nights.

And to be honest: Your plans on Qt look scary to me. You will set up a whole bunch of dependencies on other libraries. I cannot see how this would improve code quality and stability. I, for example, am really happy that I do not have to bother with boost, when I have Qt around.

And I would not bet a single penny on a one-man-show dealing with a complete Qt fork.

I really don’t think it’s an good idea to start forking Qt. There also is no real reason to do so. Forking would just create big incompatibility and quality problems, and it could split the community (although I don’t think you can attract many). I also don’t like your plan of eg. creating dependencies to other libraries. And by the way, how would you maintain and further develop your fork? It sure would not be one man’s project or something like that. Remember that Trolltech was a company too. Sorry but the whole idea of forking Qt is an bad idea. I can’t support your idea of forking Qt. I’m goig to stay with the official Qt developed by Nokia.

I understand the fork idea clearly, and I though to this, me too for some nights. As a matter of fact, including the actual Nokia directions for development and platforms (hardware, software, MS partnership etc), I agree with the previous two posts. QT – regardless to hist destiny that will be decided by Nokia next months – is “live”, and is rare to find a wide-range development platform growing, with the attention QT has at this moment, that is in the meantime open and of high quality. So, probably the very best thing is to work integrating single development experiences (individual or teams) to enhance and help this growing.

It will not be the first time that while a lot of people are working to define some kind of standard of “optimal perfomance platform” there is something – not necessary under the spot – that became the real reference for a bit set of devices simply because there are the capabilities.
If someone has not yet forgotten, think to DOS and see what’s happening in the android world…

If anyone is going to fork Qt, it will be the KDE people. They are the top customer for Qt on the desktop. The mobile-oriented work Nokia is doing is very useful and valuable so it might end up being better for KDE to contribute what they need to Nokia’s Qt instead of forking it.

Here’s an interesting web page: http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

(I work at Nokia)