On Thursday, December 15, 2011 13:12:42 Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 12.25.10, Stephen Kelly wrote:
The reason I'm bringing it up is that I want to be able to communicate
through the CMake files which features Qt was built excluding.
For example, if Qt was
On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 13.01.06, Frans Klaver wrote:
I didn't intend to suggest that they should be parachuted in. It could
be worth investigating if some people from digia may have already
shown that they fit the bill. As far as I know current maintainers and
approvers have the
Tuukka:
How can we most-easily discover the list of changes that
are in Qt Commercial 4.8.0 but not in (LGPL) Qt 4.8.0?
We have several bugs we're particularly interested in...
Atlant
From: development-bounces+aschmidt=dekaresearch@qt-project.org
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Thiago Macieira
thiago.macie...@intel.com wrote:
I've spoken about this to Tuukka in a couple of occasions. It's my
understanding that getting the Digia engineers become approvers and eventually
maintainers for the parts they work mostly on is their intention
Hi everybody. Sorry for the length of thjis message, but doing API
reviews by mail is hard, and I needed to explain many decisions here and
there (and, of course, the API itself). :-(
Attached to this mail (and also here: http://pastebin.com/KzsGFXJC --
if you don't want to
Hi Tuukka,
(now that I've left some hours to digest this...)
2011/12/15 Turunen Tuukka tuukka.turu...@digia.com:
So now there is total of 108 improvements and bug fixes available in Qt
Commercial 4.8.0 that are not part of the LGPL release. I want to underline
that this is not the intended
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Olivier Goffart oliv...@woboq.com wrote:
On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:53:12 sinan.tanil...@nokia.com wrote:
We hope to move Qt 4 to Gerrit soon. This should enable faster handling of
contributions.
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell robin...@viroteck.net wrote:
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt 4.8?
I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
policy, it needs to be documented and communicated somewhere. You
On Thursday 15 December 2011 22:31:32 Robin Burchell wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robin Burchell robin...@viroteck.net
wrote:
Wasn't the policy to first push the code in Qt5, then backport in Qt
4.8?
I'd agree that would make sense to be a policy. But for it to be a
On Thursday 15 December 2011 18:40:45 Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
Hi there,
I would like to gather your opinion on whether we should move
QUndoStack and QUndoCommand out of QtWidgets so they could be used
without requiring this module as an extra dependency.
After a brief investigation,
Hi Giuseppe,
I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm
actually referring to the API.
I started looking at it and it seems too cluttered. Specially this early in the
process. It's hard to review something that is trying to be everything or maybe
it's just
I'm quoting Robin's email (with some of my comments), because I think it
was a great message that I don't want lost:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Robin Burchell robin...@viroteck.netwrote:
Hi Tuukka,
(now that I've left some hours to digest this...)
2011/12/15 Turunen Tuukka
On 15 December 2011 19:45, Oswald Buddenhagen
oswald.buddenha...@nokia.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 04:43:49PM +, ext Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
pos, matchedLength, endPos
inconsistent naming
Well, pos and matchedLength come straight from QRegExp and I kept
them. But please, any
On Thursday, 15 de December de 2011 22.53.19, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Giuseppe,
I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm
actually referring to the API.
Hi as well Giuseppe
I did read most of your email :-) Thanks for the effort so far.
I'd like to
Having been release manager for several past Qt feature releases (4.5 to 4.7),
I'm wary of setting a single feature freeze date and having a big rush to cram
all the new features into the master branch in the last couple of days before
the deadline. Instead, I would like to see a staggered
On 15 December 2011 22:53, joao.abeca...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Giuseppe,
Hi João,
thanks for the comments.
I'll start by saying tl;dr. But I didn't stop because of your e-mail, I'm
actually referring to the API.
I started looking at it and it seems too cluttered. Specially this early in
2011/12/16 Thiago Macieira thiago.macie...@intel.com:
I did read most of your email :-) Thanks for the effort so far.
Hero :-) Thank you for reading!
I'd like to start by saying I agree with Ossi: the test/set way of setting
flags is un-Qt-ish. I know it exists in a few places, but they are
Op 16-12-2011 1:07, Giuseppe D'Angelo schreef:
fwiw, the usual elegant solution is having a value and a mask parameter.
the mask could have two magic values meaning un-/set all asserted in
vlaue to mean effectively what your bool means. the default argument
would be the magic value for
18 matches
Mail list logo
