> On Apr 27, 2017, at 11:28 PM, Lars Knoll wrote:
>
>
>> On 27 Apr 2017, at 16:59, Jake Petroules wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Tuukka Turunen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Related to the Apple platforms, could we consider the following for Qt 5.10:
>>> - Drop the older
I have a desktop app that I have been trying to get onto the Mac App store
but I have been having problems getting it to run in sandbox mode. For
context I am (preferably) using Qt 5.8 running on macOS 10.11.6.
The crux seems to be QtWebEngineProcess.app refuses to run after I codesign
the bundle.
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 11:54 PM, Shawn Rutledge wrote:
>
>
>> On 27 Apr 2017, at 16:59, Jake Petroules wrote:
>>
>> Anyways, iOS 11 will likely drop support for 32-bit applications entirely
>> (i.e. they will not launch because 32-bit system libs will be GONE). So I
>> agree we should stop s
On Friday, 28 April 2017 09:51:58 -03 Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> 2017-04-28 14:23 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira :
> > On Friday, 28 April 2017 03:56:22 -03 Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> >> Yes, MSVC 2017 is already supported in Qt 5.9 and we are trying to get
> >> pre-built binaries available before final rel
On Friday, 28 April 2017 11:54:53 -03 Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There is a strange situation involving official Qt SDK (>=5.8.0) binaries
> for Linux, ICU, cmake, and WebKit project files, I'm not sure which side
> really needs to be fixed.
>
> (Qt)WebKit uses custom module to find I
On 28 April 2017 at 13:51, Benjamin TERRIER wrote:
> 2017-04-28 14:23 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira :
> > On Friday, 28 April 2017 03:56:22 -03 Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> >> Yes, MSVC 2017 is already supported in Qt 5.9 and we are trying to get
> >> pre-built binaries available before final release; le
Christian Kandeler (28 April 2017 16:19)
> I see one +1 and one -2.
ah - sorry - I though that one was off-list.
Andre: do you feel your concern is addressed by my clarified proposal ?
Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.or
Op 28/04/2017 om 15:48 schreef Martin Smith:
>> I am a bit worried about having a good way to describe the specifics of a
>> >specific overload or group thereof.
> Remember you will still have the option of giving an overload its own qdoc
> comment instead of including it in the common \fn comm
Hello,
There is a strange situation involving official Qt SDK (>=5.8.0) binaries for
Linux, ICU, cmake, and WebKit project files, I'm not sure which side really
needs to be fixed.
(Qt)WebKit uses custom module to find ICU, you can see its code at [1]. Module
uses quite popular practise of invo
On 04/28/2017 04:05 PM, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> On 25 April 2017 at 10:09 I wrote (inter alia):
>> [...] the same is relevant for any approver or maintainer: perhaps we
>> should tweak our process for introducing candidates for those stations
>> within the community; ask that each introduce self
On 25 April 2017 at 10:09 I wrote (inter alia):
> [...] the same is relevant for any approver or maintainer: perhaps we
> should tweak our process for introducing candidates for those stations
> within the community; ask that each introduce self in the course of it
> - possibly *after* we've made o
On Friday April 28 2017 12:27:48 Shawn Rutledge wrote:
>That says that this fixes it https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/161056/ and
>that in turn says that https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/180232/ is the
>equivalent for 5.8. So I suppose we’d better get it into 5.9 then, right?
Dang,
>I am a bit worried about having a good way to describe the specifics of a
>>specific overload or group thereof.
Remember you will still have the option of giving an overload its own qdoc
comment instead of including it in the common \fn comment.
martin
Op 28/04/2017 om 09:35 schreef Marc Mutz:
> Hi.
>
> TL;DR: I propose to document overloaded functions with a single comment block,
> containing multiple \fn's and a common documentation text, to be rendered as
> one documentation block preceded by a listing of all the \fn's, instead of as
> indiv
2017-04-28 14:23 GMT+02:00 Thiago Macieira :
> On Friday, 28 April 2017 03:56:22 -03 Jani Heikkinen wrote:
>> Yes, MSVC 2017 is already supported in Qt 5.9 and we are trying to get
>> pre-built binaries available before final release; let's see if we can
>> make it happen
>
> I remember a discussi
> On 28 Apr 2017, at 11:32, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Together with the principal maintainer I am looking into issues in a style
> plugin related to its use of DBus (to be informed of desktop-wide changes):
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363753
That says that this fixe
On Friday, 28 April 2017 06:32:04 -03 René J.V. Bertin wrote:
> Together with the principal maintainer I am looking into issues in a style
> plugin related to its use of DBus (to be informed of desktop-wide changes):
>
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363753
Before I read any of the rest: c
On Friday, 28 April 2017 03:56:22 -03 Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> Yes, MSVC 2017 is already supported in Qt 5.9 and we are trying to get
> pre-built binaries available before final release; let's see if we can
> make it happen
I remember a discussion about whether we needed MSVC 2017 binaries in the
>> Something like the following seems nice:
>> Tier 1 - the most rigorously tested configurations, tested in CI
>> Tier 2 - we actively try to make it work but it's a lower priority;
>> will make and accept patches and provide support but isn't tested in
>> CI
>> Unsupported - we remove code that
On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:41:08AM +, Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As informed a week a go string freeze for Qt 5.9 is now in effect. So please,
> no changes to translatable strings from this point, unless approved by the
> documentation team.
>
btw, the "unless approved by the documenta
Hi,
As informed a week a go string freeze for Qt 5.9 is now in effect. So please,
no changes to translatable strings from this point, unless approved by the
documentation team.
br,
Jani
From: Jani Heikkinen
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:56 AM
To: loca
Hello,
Together with the principal maintainer I am looking into issues in a style
plugin related to its use of DBus (to be informed of desktop-wide changes):
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363753
The ticket above is about a reproducible issue in a custom cleanup handler that
is designed
> On 28 Apr 2017, at 09:35, Marc Mutz wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> TL;DR: I propose to document overloaded functions with a single comment block,
> containing multiple \fn's and a common documentation text, to be rendered as
> one documentation block preceded by a listing of all the \fn's, instead of as
I haven't looked at all of it, but +1 on the general idea.
martin
From: Development on
behalf of Sean Harmer
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:07:46 AM
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] [docs] changing the way overloads are document
On Friday 28 April 2017 09:35:09 Marc Mutz wrote:
> What do you think?
I like the idea. +1
Sean
--
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.har...@kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts
___
Hi.
TL;DR: I propose to document overloaded functions with a single comment block,
containing multiple \fn's and a common documentation text, to be rendered as
one documentation block preceded by a listing of all the \fn's, instead of as
individual functions.
Since I learned that a qdoc comment b
26 matches
Mail list logo