[webkit-dev] Changes in QtWebKit development

Filip Pizlo fpizlo at apple.com
Tue Oct 1 07:06:44 PDT 2013

To me the most invasive Qtism is qmake. 

When can we get rid of that?


> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:50 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde at carewolf.com> wrote:
>> On Monday 30 September 2013, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde at carewolf.com> wrote:
>>> Some of this is exactly the reason we want to keep Qt WebKit alive. It
>>> may never be possible to fully replace Qt WebKit with anything
>>> Blink/Chromium based.
>> I really don’t understand this, there are only two options:
>> 1. Qt Webkit is critical to you and you want to support and maintain it,
>> and do all the work necessary for that; or 2. Qt WebKit is not critical,
>> and so you could simply branch and have a permanent stable release
>> platform similar to what the S60 port did years ago.
>> Currently you seem to be arguing for a third option, wherein all of the
>> WebKit developers need to deal with your port, and be hamstrung by the
>> numerous invasive Qt-isms scattered throughout the codebase, for a port
>> that isn’t considered critical to its own platform.
> Actually I am arguing we should get rid of most of the invasive Qt'ism unless 
> they are really required for Qt WebKit to even work. Many of them were only 
> necessary due to having to support so many platforms. With a more narrow focus 
> we can hopefully get rid of 90% of the burden. If it turns out not to be 
> possible in the end, we can always leave after having helped as far as we 
> could.
> Best regards
> `Allan
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

More information about the webkit-dev mailing list