Hi Laszlo,
On 19/01/12 6:37 PM, "ext Laszlo Papp" wrote:
>> Sorry about the delay - there has been no progress that I've seen. I
>> repinged again recently but will do again.
>
>Would it be the best to call instead ?
Perhaps yes. I have received some initial guidance from Cristy - QtOpenAL
its
Sorry for top posting...
Yes, we are happy to maintain the 4.7 branch, thoug we are not planning more
releases to it unless something comes up.
Let's see where the decision settles, after which we do the needed actions, and
see who from Digia is the best one for this.
Yours,
Tuukka
da
On 1/19/12 4:15 AM, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On Wednesday, 18 de January de 2012 21.24.36, Shaw Andy wrote:
>> For what it is worth I also agree that it should be changed, having
>> recently having to deal with the QDoubleValidator problem when it came
>>to
>> this became a right pain so makin
On Friday 06 January 2012 19:09:26 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 6 de January de 2012 21.38.19, David Faure wrote:
> > > The first solution doesn't look nice. It would have to fail opening
> > > completely.
> >
> > Well, this is just like using ReadOnly | Truncate, for instance. These are
>
On Jan 19, 2012, at 21:58 , ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> By the way, considering what Ossi said in the other email ("4.7 is closed as
> far as the qt project is concerned [...] [because] fixes are not being
> applied
> to 4.7 first"), the Qt project needs to make a decision:
>
> - reopen the 4
On Thursday, 19 de January de 2012 16.49.20, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> So Digia is operating under special conditions right now, due to the lack
> of Qt4 in Gerrit. Once it stabilises, I'd rather not see Digia release a
> commercial version with a version number that the official Qt doesn't have
>
> the thing is that 4.7 is closed as far as the qt project is concerned.
> we have cemented this decision (made by qt nokia RM) by creating facts -
> fixes are not being applied to 4.7 first, and given the strong
> forward-merge-only preference, this cannot be revised without creating
> ugliness.
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:55:34PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> >> wrote:
> >> > i made an attemp
On 19/01/2012 12:55, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald
>>> Buddenhagen wrote:
i made an attempt to give the digia group
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>> > i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
>> > the branch 4.7-digia
On Thursday, 19 de January de 2012 19.32.23, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> > > i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
> > > the branch
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 08:24:22PM +0200, ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
> > the branch 4.7-digia
>
> why not just put it in 4.7, so they're one and the same,
>
b
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 13:43:29 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Abecasis wrote:
> On 6. jan. 2012, at 21.27, ext David Faure wrote:
> > On Friday 06 January 2012 11:41:05 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o?= Abecasis wrote:
> >> I don't support putting this in QFile as has been suggested as, from my
> >> experience
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> i made an attempt to give the digia group on gerrit the right to create
> the branch 4.7-digia
why not just put it in 4.7, so they're one and the same, and nobody
else needs to get confused about where to send things if they want to
con
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 05:21:48PM +0100, ext Daniel Molkentin wrote:
> On 1/19/2012 4:46 PM, ext Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> >In case there is still interest towards 4.7 in the community, we are happy
> >to make the source code available. What way would you prefer? We can, for
> >example, make this av
On 1/19/2012 4:46 PM, ext Turunen Tuukka wrote:
Hi,
We have just released Qt Commercial 4.7.5, which is based on Qt 4.7.4,
additionally containing the fixes from 4.7 branch that were not in
4.7.4, as well as fixes we have backported from 4.8. Overall Qt
Commercial contains 216 fixes to Qt
Hi,
We have just released Qt Commercial 4.7.5, which is based on Qt 4.7.4,
additionally containing the fixes from 4.7 branch that were not in 4.7.4, as
well as fixes we have backported from 4.8. Overall Qt Commercial contains 216
fixes to Qt Commercial 4.7.4, and a few more to LGPL version of
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM, wrote:
> Is there really any big value in having this? It feels wrong to have
> special handling for HTML in here. While it's one of the most prominent
> formats for rich text, there are so many other formats that would require
> different escaping and we ce
Thanks all. I'll try do my best to not explode things. :)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:32 PM, André Somers wrote:
> Op 19-1-2012 13:12, lars.kn...@nokia.com schreef:
>> The approval period has passed, and Robin has now gotten Approver status
>> today.
>>
>> Congratulations Robin!
>>
> Congrats indee
Op 19-1-2012 13:12, lars.kn...@nokia.com schreef:
> The approval period has passed, and Robin has now gotten Approver status
> today.
>
> Congratulations Robin!
>
Congrats indeed, well deserved!
André
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.o
The approval period has passed, and Robin has now gotten Approver status
today.
Congratulations Robin!
Cheers,
Lars
On 12/29/11 3:14 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
>I'd like to nominate Robin Burchell (a.k.a. w00t on IRC) for approver in
>Qt.
>He's been around Qt for some time now and has b
See https://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTBUG-23273
I have a patch for removing it from Q_DECLARE_INTERFACE, see
http://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,13570
It'll require more work to get rid of the other references. I'm especially
wondering what would break if we change the com.trolltech i
org.qt-project sounds like the right default to me, for places where a reverse
domain is used.
The Nokia maps location plugin should probably still be com.nokia though.
> -Original Message-
> From: development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org
> [mailto:development-bounces
Hi,
Currently we have at least the following in the source code (mainly for the
interface identifiers):
com.trolltech.Qt.*
com.trolltech.qml.*
com.nokia.Qt.*
com.nokia.qt.*
Any plans / on-going work to fix these legacies? I propose to use
"org.qt-project.*".
Any other ideas?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> Hi Pierre,
>
>
> I can see now how you'd be able to implement tracking with this, but I
> wonder
> how much more complex this makes your layout altogether, because hidden
> fragments are right now subject to the layout and they're always vis
On Wednesday 18. January 2012 21.07.39 ext Robin Burchell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for following this up from Gerrit!
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:52 PM, wrote:
> > I was looking at toHtmlEscaped() method in QString class which converts
> > metacharacters <, >, &, and " replaced by HTML entitie
> Sorry about the delay - there has been no progress that I've seen. I
> repinged again recently but will do again.
Would it be the best to call instead ?
Best Regards,
Laszlo Papp
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-
27 matches
Mail list logo
