Hey,
> > One of the items mentioned has been CoAP and that it would make a
> > great addition to Qt. Interestingly, there has been discussions
> > between the Qt Company and Witekio about exactly this topic. Thanks to
> > the people at Witekio these resulted in actual code already available
> >
On Friday, 1 September 2017 05:06:23 PDT Maurice Kalinowski wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Most of you might have noticed the IoT related discussion happening on this
> mailing list. If not, check here in the archive:
> http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-August/030723.html
>
> One
You are using QtIFW and you do not like rigid limitations on the name and
version of packages - vote for optional freedom!
Suggestion:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTIFW-948
Apropriate change request:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/203958
--
Regards,
Konstantin Podsvirov
Hi everyone,
Most of you might have noticed the IoT related discussion happening on this
mailing list. If not, check here in the archive:
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2017-August/030723.html
One of the items mentioned has been CoAP and that it would make a great
addition
On Freitag, 1. September 2017 11:51:39 CEST Jani Heikkinen wrote:
> Still 9 changes file without '+2':
..
> - qt/qtwebchannel
Updated the changes file request, please review:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/203718/
Note that it's exceptionally confusing that I need to commit the changes
Still 9 changes file without '+2':
- qt/qtbase
- qt/qtwebsockets
- qt/qtwebsockets
- qt/qtdatavis3d
- qt/qtgraphicaleffects
- qt/qtwebchannel
- qt/qtcanvas3d
- qt/qtmacextras
- qt/qtactiveqt
Maintainers, please make sure these will ready latest on Monday morning
br,
Jani
Eike Ziller wrote:
> Another good question to ask when introducing source incompatible changes, is
> “how hard does it make supporting building with both Qt 5 and Qt 6 from the
> same code base”. We did that for Qt Creator for quite some while, and it makes
> the transition process much smoother
> On 31. Aug 2017, at 16:58, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 01:35:08 PDT René J. V. Bertin wrote:
>>> Source compatibility. Which is why it's unlikely we'll do it.
>>
>> Qt6 isn't going to break anything that builds against a sufficiently