Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Thiago Macieira]

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019 04:40:24 PST Tuukka Turunen wrote:
> I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases.
> However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable
> for the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding
> something and removing another is fine if that is what best serves our
> users. That said, we should not do this very often as LTS is about
> continuity.

I'm going to say +1 on this exception to the rule.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center



___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Enum classes in signals?

[Sze Howe Koh]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 12:43, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development
 wrote:
>
> Il 05/02/19 18:16, Dmitriy Purgin ha scritto:
> > I couldn't figure out the exact combination but as far as I remember, if
> > you have namespaced code, you have to always fully qualify the enum
> > class parameters in signals and slots.
>
> This is actually also the case for enums and enum classes. For instance,
> consider
>
> class A : public QObject {
>Q_OBJECT
> public:
>enum class E { E1, E2, E3 };
> signals:
>void mySignal(E);
> };
>
> class B : public QObject {
>Q_OBJECT
> public slots:
>void mySlot(A::E);
> };
>
> This code compiles just fine, but you will NOT be able to connect
> mySignal1 to mySlot using SIGNAL/SLOT.
>
> Doing it like this
>
>connect(a, SIGNAL(mySignal(E)), b, SLOT(mySlot(A::E)));
>
> won't work because the argument lists don't match (this connect version
> compares the parameter lists _as strings_, and obviously "E" is
> different from "A::E").
>
>
> Connecting it like this
>
>connect(a, SIGNAL(mySignal(A::E)), b, SLOT(mySlot(A::E)));
>
> will not find mySignal in A, because the lookup will search for a
> function with that signature _spelled exactly that way in the source
> code_. Such a function is not there; the source code spells "E" as
> parameter type, not "A::E".
>
> The solution hence is to declare the signal with an A::E parameter.

+1

This is (kind of) illustrated at
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/signalsandslots-syntaxes.html#type-checking-and-implicit-type-conversions
using QAudio::State as an example.

The article also shows a use-case that cannot be supported by PMF
connections, namely making connections between C++ and QML. This is
why the string-based syntax must not be deprecated.


Regards,
Sze-Howe
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Tuukka Turunen]

Hi,

I do agree that we should avoid dropping configurations in patch releases. 
However, we should be pragmatic and provide the set that is most valuable for 
the users and still feasible to maintain. So in my opinion adding something and 
removing another is fine if that is what best serves our users. That said, we 
should not do this very often as LTS is about continuity. 

Yours,

Tuukka


On 06/02/2019, 14.24, "Development on behalf of Alex Blasche" 
 wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as 
always"
> with the next minor release.

As the person who initiated this, I have a bit of an ambivalent view point. 
Fact is, we have always made those changes for the next minor release and not 
in the middle of a patch release series. It provides essential continuity for 
our users especially for an LTS release. I would not want this policy being 
changed. Whatever is the outcome in this case, this rule should stay.

The question is now whether we should revert the above change and truly 
make it happen in 5.13+. Reason for the change was the large resounding request 
for the mingw 32bit binaries and Olli and me purposely picked a WinRT build 
with the least usage (based on our understanding). LTS will go on for some 
time. 

Personally, I would vote for an exception to acquiesce the demand.

--
Alex
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Alex Blasche]

> -Original Message-
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as always"
> with the next minor release.

As the person who initiated this, I have a bit of an ambivalent view point. 
Fact is, we have always made those changes for the next minor release and not 
in the middle of a patch release series. It provides essential continuity for 
our users especially for an LTS release. I would not want this policy being 
changed. Whatever is the outcome in this case, this rule should stay.

The question is now whether we should revert the above change and truly make it 
happen in 5.13+. Reason for the change was the large resounding request for the 
mingw 32bit binaries and Olli and me purposely picked a WinRT build with the 
least usage (based on our understanding). LTS will go on for some time. 

Personally, I would vote for an exception to acquiesce the demand.

--
Alex
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Roland Winklmeier]

Am Mi., 6. Feb. 2019 um 13:01 Uhr schrieb Jesus Fernandez <
jesus.fernan...@qt.io>:

>
> The original mail said nothing about 5.12.2. And I would remove support
> for both compilers in 5.13. Any 32 bits is an outdated platform.
>
>
>
32 bit is not only about platform. 32 bit applications still run perfectly
fine on 64 bit Windows OS and there are many older but relevant
applications and libraries that haven't been ported yet to 64 bit and
require still 32 bit builds.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Maurice Kalinowski]

The mail did not state 5.12.x. Hence it was under the assumption "as always" 
with the next minor release.

Maurice


> -Original Message-
> From: Jani Heikkinen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 12:54 PM
> To: Jesus Fernandez ; Maurice Kalinowski
> ; Simon Hausmann 
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> Hi!
> 
> >>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
> stop providing them in 5.12.x.
> I disagree. I agree we shouldn't do this kind of decisions without good
> reasons but I don't see anything why we couldn't do this kind of changes if
> there is good reasons. This is different issue than dropping support which we
> can't do in patch level releases...
> 
>  If we want to start delivering mingw32bit (which were dropped but it seems
> to be widely needed) then we need to drop something. It was proposed that
> UWP x86 msvc 2015 prebuild binaries are replaced with mingw32 ones. PM
> sent proposal to the ML and no-one disagreed. Then we did the decision to
> do the switch... One needing UWP x86 for MSVC2015 can still compile those
> by himself.
> 
> br,
> Jani
> 
> From: Jesus Fernandez
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 1:06 PM
> To: Jani Heikkinen; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> > I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
> 
> Yes, I was referring to patch releases.
> 
> And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot
> stop providing them in 5.12.x.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jesús
> 
> 
> From: Jani Heikkinen
> Sent: 06 February 2019 11:02
> To: Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we
> deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least
> removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with
> doing this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and feedback from
> dropping mingw 32 bit is coming just from 5.12 series...
> 
> br,
> Jani
> 
> From: Development  on behalf of
> Maurice Kalinowski 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:32 AM
> To: Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
> We've been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so
> far, but not for patch level ones.
> 
> Maurice
> 
> 
> From: Development  On Behalf Of
> Simon Hausmann
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
> To: Jesus Fernandez 
> Cc: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not
> result in any changes in the git repos.
> Simon
> 
> On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez
> mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
> Can we remove a platform in a minor version?
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Jesús
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Harald Kjølberg
> mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
> Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in
> favour of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be
> implemented, effective from Qt 5.12.2.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Harald
> 
> From: Development  project.org> on behalf of
> Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
> Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
> To: "development@qt-project.org"
> mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
> Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour
> of MinGW 32-bit packages
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some
> constructive and well deserved criticism):
> 
> We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of
> MinGW 32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be
> done, and it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision
> February 5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback
> saying that we should do otherwise.
> 
> For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Harald 

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Jesus Fernandez]

Hi!

The original mail said nothing about 5.12.2. And I would remove support for 
both compilers in 5.13. Any 32 bits is an outdated platform.



Best regards,

Jesús


From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06 February 2019 12:54
To: Jesus Fernandez; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Hi!

>>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot 
>>stop providing them in 5.12.x.
I disagree. I agree we shouldn't do this kind of decisions without good reasons 
but I don't see anything why we couldn't do this kind of changes if there is 
good reasons. This is different issue than dropping support which we can't do 
in patch level releases...

 If we want to start delivering mingw32bit (which were dropped but it seems to 
be widely needed) then we need to drop something. It was proposed that UWP x86 
msvc 2015 prebuild binaries are replaced with mingw32 ones. PM sent proposal to 
the ML and no-one disagreed. Then we did the decision to do the switch... One 
needing UWP x86 for MSVC2015 can still compile those by himself.

br,
Jani

From: Jesus Fernandez
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 1:06 PM
To: Jani Heikkinen; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.

Yes, I was referring to patch releases.

And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot 
stop providing them in 5.12.x.


Best regards,

Jesús


From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06 February 2019 11:02
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Hi,

As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we 
deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least 
removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with doing 
this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and feedback from dropping 
mingw 32 bit is coming just from 5.12 series...

br,
Jani

From: Development  on behalf of Maurice 
Kalinowski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far, 
but not for patch level ones.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Simon 
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Jani Heikkinen]

Hi!

>>And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot 
>>stop providing them in 5.12.x.
I disagree. I agree we shouldn't do this kind of decisions without good reasons 
but I don't see anything why we couldn't do this kind of changes if there is 
good reasons. This is different issue than dropping support which we can't do 
in patch level releases...

 If we want to start delivering mingw32bit (which were dropped but it seems to 
be widely needed) then we need to drop something. It was proposed that UWP x86 
msvc 2015 prebuild binaries are replaced with mingw32 ones. PM sent proposal to 
the ML and no-one disagreed. Then we did the decision to do the switch... One 
needing UWP x86 for MSVC2015 can still compile those by himself.

br,
Jani

From: Jesus Fernandez
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 1:06 PM
To: Jani Heikkinen; Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.

Yes, I was referring to patch releases.

And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot 
stop providing them in 5.12.x.


Best regards,

Jesús


From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06 February 2019 11:02
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Hi,

As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we 
deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least 
removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with doing 
this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and feedback from dropping 
mingw 32 bit is coming just from 5.12 series...

br,
Jani

From: Development  on behalf of Maurice 
Kalinowski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far, 
but not for patch level ones.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Simon 
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] Qt Telemetry repository removed due to a possible copyright violation

[Tuukka Turunen]

Dear Qt developers,

We have removed Qt Telemetry repository from the Qt Project playground due to a 
possible copyright violation.

Based on analysis of the code, we have a reason to believe some of the 
contributed code is in violation of the Qt Project CLA.

According to the Qt Project CLA all contributions must be original work of the 
person making the contribution. Copying code that is written by someone else, 
removing the original copyright notices, and contributing the code as one’s own 
work is completely unacceptable.

While not all of the code in the Qt Telemetry repository are violating other’s 
copyrights, we have now removed the whole repository from the Qt Project 
playground.

If someone has cloned the Qt Telemetry repository, please delete it immediately 
and do not use it.

Yours,

Tuukka


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Jesus Fernandez]

> I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.

Yes, I was referring to patch releases.

And I think we started providing binaries for a platform in 5.12.0 we cannot 
stop providing them in 5.12.x.


Best regards,

Jesús


From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: 06 February 2019 11:02
To: Maurice Kalinowski; Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Hi,

As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we 
deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least 
removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with doing 
this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and feedback from dropping 
mingw 32 bit is coming just from 5.12 series...

br,
Jani

From: Development  on behalf of Maurice 
Kalinowski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far, 
but not for patch level ones.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Simon 
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Jani Heikkinen]

Hi,

As Simon already wrote this is affecting only prebuilt binary packages we 
deliver and nothing else. It is true that we usually haven't touched (at least 
removed) those in patch level releases but I don't see any big issue with doing 
this now; UWP x86 msvc 2015 isn't that widely used and feedback from dropping 
mingw 32 bit is coming just from 5.12 series...

br,
Jani

From: Development  on behalf of Maurice 
Kalinowski 
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:32 AM
To: Simon Hausmann; Jesus Fernandez
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far, 
but not for patch level ones.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Simon 
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Maurice Kalinowski]

I think what Jesus refers to is patch level releases.
We’ve been changing binary packages for platforms within minor releases so far, 
but not for patch level ones.

Maurice


From: Development  On Behalf Of Simon 
Hausmann
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:19 AM
To: Jesus Fernandez 
Cc: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.
Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:
Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Enum classes in signals?

[Alexander Nassian]

That’s why it is always good practice to only use FQTN in public headers anyway 
;)

Beste Grüße / Best regards,
Alexander Nassian

> Am 06.02.2019 um 05:41 schrieb Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development 
> :
> 
> Il 05/02/19 18:16, Dmitriy Purgin ha scritto:
>> I couldn't figure out the exact combination but as far as I remember, if you 
>> have namespaced code, you have to always fully qualify the enum class 
>> parameters in signals and slots.
> 
> This is actually also the case for enums and enum classes. For instance, 
> consider
> 
> class A : public QObject {
>  Q_OBJECT
> public:
>  enum class E { E1, E2, E3 };
> signals:
>  void mySignal(E);
> };
> 
> class B : public QObject {
>  Q_OBJECT
> public slots:
>  void mySlot(A::E);
> };
> 
> This code compiles just fine, but you will NOT be able to connect mySignal1 
> to mySlot using SIGNAL/SLOT.
> 
> Doing it like this
> 
>  connect(a, SIGNAL(mySignal(E)), b, SLOT(mySlot(A::E)));
> 
> won't work because the argument lists don't match (this connect version 
> compares the parameter lists _as strings_, and obviously "E" is different 
> from "A::E").
> 
> 
> Connecting it like this
> 
>  connect(a, SIGNAL(mySignal(A::E)), b, SLOT(mySlot(A::E)));
> 
> will not find mySignal in A, because the lookup will search for a function 
> with that signature _spelled exactly that way in the source code_. Such a 
> function is not there; the source code spells "E" as parameter type, not 
> "A::E".
> 
> The solution hence is to declare the signal with an A::E parameter.
> 
> My 2 c,
> -- 
> Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
> KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company
> Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com
> KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development


-- 













—


bitshift dynamics GmbH
Neudorfer Str. 1, 79541 Lörrach

Registergericht: Amtsgericht Freiburg i. Breisgau, HRB 713747

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Nassian, Markus Pfaffinger



http://www.bitshift-dynamics.de 


Zentrale: +49 762158673 - 0
Fax: +49 7621 58673 - 90


Allgemeine Anfragen: 
i...@bitshift-dynamics.com 
Technischer 
Support: supp...@bitshift-dynamics.com 

Buchhaltung: 
invo...@bitshift-dynamics.com 
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 32-bit packages

[Simon Hausmann]

Afaik this merely affects the binaries provided in the installer. It does not 
result in any changes in the git repos.

Simon

On 5. Feb 2019, at 16:03, Jesus Fernandez 
mailto:jesus.fernan...@qt.io>> wrote:

Can we remove a platform in a minor version?



Best regards,
Jesús


 Original message 
From: Harald Kjølberg mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: 05/02/2019 15:56 (GMT+01:00)
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour 
of MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

As no objections have been received, the proposed change will be implemented, 
effective from Qt 5.12.2.


Cheers,
Harald

From: Development 
mailto:development-boun...@qt-project.org>> 
on behalf of Harald Kjølberg 
mailto:harald.kjolb...@qt.io>>
Date: Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 14:36
To: "development@qt-project.org" 
mailto:development@qt-project.org>>
Subject: [Development] Intention of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of 
MinGW 32-bit packages


Hi,

In order to improve transparency and visibility (after getting some 
constructive and well deserved criticism):

We have received a proposal of dropping UWP 2015 x86 builds in favour of MinGW 
32-bit packages. We looked at this today and agreed that this can be done, and 
it should be our intention to do so. We will make the final decision February 
5th, and it will remain as described unless we get a lot of feedback saying 
that we should do otherwise.

For further details: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-73019



Regards,
Harald Kjølberg

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development