On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote: > I was in vacation last week without proper internet access. > Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you > rebased or refreshed the changes. This show a problem with the gerrit tool > and a major annoyance of the "topics" since it keeps you from already > merging the stand alone patches that have already been approved.
The earlier ones that had +2 kept them. It's only the later ones that lost the
+2 due to rebasing, because Gerrit doesn't know whether the change depended on
something from the previous version.
Even though it told me "no files changed, just rebased" when I pushed.
> Regarding the 2 patches which I have not approved: I personally think they
> are not giving anything usefull, just adding complexity.
> I think QBasicMutex and QMutex should be the same, only one is POD. And am
> not in favor of all the patches that goes against that. But I realize that
> argument is not enough to veto or even put -1.
The problem is that QBasicMutex being POD -- actually, being zero initialised
-- is imposing constraints in how we can optimise the much more used QMutex.
QMutex construction happens once, so it makes sense to keep the lock & timing
structure, instead of having to find it from the freelist on every contended
lock and unlock.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
