Alberto Mardegan schreef op 22-4-2015 om 13:32:
>
> It may be that we disagree because we have a different view of what is
> the goal of QImage and friends. To me, what matters is not the pixel
> data, but how the image looks like when I blit it.
> I'm writing an image viewer using QML, and I just
>
> On Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:11:23 CEST, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> > as long as the behaviour was configurable with a single line
> > change (a static method on QGuiApplication, maybe?).
>
Stop polluting QGuiApplication! Seriously.
We already have a complete solution -
https://codereview.qt-
On Wednesday 22 April 2015 18:36:01 mark diener wrote:
> Gunnar & Thiago:
>
> Ok, thanks, that will shrink my build test footprint even more.
>
> I think the magic configure switch is "-nomake tools" on Visual Studio
> 2013 Win32
>
> I missed it during the scanning of options for configure.bat,
Gunnar & Thiago:
Ok, thanks, that will shrink my build test footprint even more.
I think the magic configure switch is "-nomake tools" on Visual Studio
2013 Win32
I missed it during the scanning of options for configure.bat, and that
caused much consternation.
But now I can run nmake, nmake in
On Thursday, 23 April 2015 00:11:23 CEST, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> as long as the behaviour was configurable with a single line
> change (a static method on QGuiApplication, maybe?).
That means that you will have to patch all libraries which care about this
option and which you're using at the
On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 21:19:43 CEST, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Damn system refused to let me push anything where before I've
> been able to do so.
Hi René,
what did the damn system say, and what command did you use to send your
patch to that damn system?
Cheers,
Jan
--
Trojitá, a fast Qt
On Wednesday 22 April 2015 17:29:28 mark diener wrote:
> Thiago and Gunnar:
>
> Thank you for your suggestions, yet none of them work.
>
> To shrink my test environment, I downloaded the 2 source code files as a
> minimum build test.
>
> http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/5.4/5.4.1/submo
Thiago and Gunnar:
Thank you for your suggestions, yet none of them work.
To shrink my test environment, I downloaded the 2 source code files as a
minimum build test.
http://download.qt.io/official_releases/qt/5.4/5.4.1/submodules/qt5-opensource-src-5.4.1.7z
http://download.qt.io/official_releas
On 04/22/2015 09:54 PM, André Pönitz wrote:
> However, we do have context here, namely existing behaviour in Qt 5.x,
> as well as certain general promises given for changes between Qt 5.x and
> Qt 5.(x+1).
I see it as a long standing bug which finally got fixed.
But the problem is that the behavi
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 02:32:51PM +0300, Alberto Mardegan wrote:
> On 04/22/2015 09:39 AM, André Somers wrote:
> > I'm with Konstatin on this one:
I am, too.
> > it seems like a regression to me. It
> > would be a useful feature to add, but then add it in such a way that it
> > is actually clear
On Wednesday 22 April 2015 09:55:52 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> >> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/123458/
> >
> >Sure, but your patch should be rejected there.
>
> Opinion, not a fact.
>
> The patch is up there for review and reference, not to sneak into Qt via a
> backdoor. There is no backdoor
Looks like you removed the directory AFTER configure. But you should remove it
before.
Regards,
Gunnar
> Am 22.04.2015 um 13:44 schrieb rpzrpz...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Thiago:
>
> Unfortunately, your suggestion of removing the directory and/or its
> contents did not yield a positive result.
>
> Ho
Konstantin
2015-04-22 15:32 GMT+04:00 Alberto Mardegan :
> On 04/22/2015 09:39 AM, André Somers wrote:
> > I'm with Konstatin on this one: it seems like a regression to me. It
> > would be a useful feature to add, but then add it in such a way that it
> > is actually clear what it does, the user
I think, there should be an option in Image item to use autorotation or not
2015-04-22 14:32 GMT+03:00 Alberto Mardegan :
> On 04/22/2015 09:39 AM, André Somers wrote:
> > I'm with Konstatin on this one: it seems like a regression to me. It
> > would be a useful feature to add, but then add it in
Thiago:
Unfortunately, your suggestion of removing the directory and/or its
contents did not yield a positive result.
How does one successfully remove a sub-module from the build process?
Copied below is the nmake output after removing the contents of the
qlalr directory and the directory itsel
On 04/22/2015 09:39 AM, André Somers wrote:
> I'm with Konstatin on this one: it seems like a regression to me. It
> would be a useful feature to add, but then add it in such a way that it
> is actually clear what it does, the user can control it, and it does not
> break applications. I think it _i
On Tuesday April 21 2015 15:02:33 Thiago Macieira
>... just whining.
No comment.
But just for the record, I was indeed annoyed (with myself at least as much as
with gerrit) but otherwise just observing a fact. I think I made it clear
enough that I wasn't going to have time to spend on the issue
17 matches
Mail list logo
