On 21.02.2013 14:00, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
> Unfortunately we do not have unlimited resources in the release team, so
> pointlessly redoing the packages is not something I want to do.
>
I would release the already packaged versions as they are as a
Digia-only release, and skip 4.8.5/4.7.6 in the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 10:13:51AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quinta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2013 16.54.09, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > there is always something "more important". that's not a free ticket to
> > dump best practices.
>
> Can you please send a link to the best practices
On sexta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2013 00.15.19, Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> On 21 February 2013 02:31, Ing. Reynier Pupo Gómez wrote:
> > What about using of OpenMP standard? It could be very usefull and well
> > known
> >
> > by the C/C++ comunity.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I had a quick look, b
On quinta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2013 16.54.09, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> there is always something "more important". that's not a free ticket to
> dump best practices. we have some people in the project who consistently
> think they can do it, and it shows in the quality of their code.
Can y
On quinta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2013 11.53.42, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> On 21.2.2013 10.07, "Peter Kümmel" wrote:
> >On 19.02.2013 20:29, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> >> We have the packages ready and tested with minor
> >>
> > > fixes compared to RC1 (21st Dec). If we re-do these
> > > packages it
On quinta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2013 13.00.50, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
> -> Digia did 4.6.4 and 4.7.5 releases for the needs of the commercial
> customers
> -> Digia did similar releases for LGPL
> -> These were not accepted for distribution at the time (by Nokia)
> -> Source code is available in
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 14:50:26 Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote:
> As far as I can gather from the attention this discussion is getting,
> having the code drop with amendments in the Android-specific parts of
> the code is not unacceptable to anyone but you, while having the history
> inta
On Friday 22 February 2013 00:07:28 Sze Howe Koh wrote:
> On 21 February 2013 02:16, Corentin Jabot wrote:
> > Hi. I'm the one Olivier mentioned :p
> >
> > I didn't have time to pursue further the work I started, but I intend
> > to, someday.
> >
> > The plan, as suggested by thiago was to have
On 21 February 2013 02:31, Ing. Reynier Pupo Gómez wrote:
> What about using of OpenMP standard? It could be very usefull and well known
>
> by the C/C++ comunity.
Thanks for the suggestion. I had a quick look, but it seems to be on
the low-level side. I'm not sure if we want to use #pragmas for
On 21 February 2013 02:16, Corentin Jabot wrote:
> Hi. I'm the one Olivier mentioned :p
>
> I didn't have time to pursue further the work I started, but I intend
> to, someday.
>
> The plan, as suggested by thiago was to have a QThread::run(functor)
> method acting exactly like QtConcurrent::run,
On 02/21/2013 04:54 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> i'll simply block the merge, and i don't even need to resort to my pet
> process reasons for that.
Ok, we will delay the merge/rebase until Lars is back and can resolve
this conflict.
-- Eskil
___
D
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:50:26PM +0100, Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:16 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >> and I fear it will jeopardize our chances of meeting the Qt 5.1
> >> deadline.
> >>
> > ah, yeah, there it is: we have a deadline to meet. let's ignore good
> > pract
Hi,
Sorry about top posting..
I think Tuukka forgot to mention\highlight that on alternative
> 1. Release the packages as proposed with the content frozen in December
> (i.e. same as RC1, but with a few minor fixes in packaging) and have them
> available as branches of the official branches
the
On 02/21/2013 02:16 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> and I fear it will jeopardize our chances of meeting the Qt 5.1
>> deadline.
>>
> ah, yeah, there it is: we have a deadline to meet. let's ignore good
> practice!
Yes, of course it is a trade-off. In this case, the negative effects of
having a
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:15:45PM +0100, Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote:
> We have a disagreement on how to integrate the Android port into Qt
> which we need to get resolved.
>
> Here's the discussion:
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,47480
>
> tl;dr: Should we merge or re
Long emails and good discussion. It would have been great to have this in
December, but better late than never.
To summarize, here is the situation up until now:
-> Digia did 4.6.4 and 4.7.5 releases for the needs of the commercial
customers
-> Digia did similar releases for LGPL
-> These were n
The original talk in Dec, 2012:
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/releasing/2012-December/000930.html
Maybe not many people have noticed it.
In my own opinion, they are from 4.7-digia and 4.6-digia branch, better name
the packages like that. Otherwise, need to merge them to upstream at first
On 21.2.2013 10.07, "Peter Kümmel" wrote:
>On 19.02.2013 20:29, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>>
>> We have the packages ready and tested with minor
> > fixes compared to RC1 (21st Dec). If we re-do these
> > packages it is a significant effort with very limited benefits.
>>
>
>It seems to me this alrea
Thanks Thiago and Peter for your suggestions.
I am trying to debug the cause for assertion.
@Peter : Yes I have compiled the Qt on Windows with the required
configuration.
Regards,
Amogh.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 21.02.2013 06:04, Amogh Kudari wrote:
> > Hi Al
On 19.02.2013 20:29, Turunen Tuukka wrote:
>
> We have the packages ready and tested with minor
> fixes compared to RC1 (21st Dec). If we re-do these
> packages it is a significant effort with very limited benefits.
>
It seems to me this already happens before:
you first do the packaging and the
20 matches
Mail list logo
