Honestly I feel very disappointed as well with this decision. I feel similarly
to others, Qbs is now being phased out so fast (half a year of development,
another half a year of maintanance after that it seems). So better get to
porting stuff to CMake right away. Having experience with CMake
Hi all,
Final downmerge from '5.12' to '5.12.0' is mostly done; only qtbase and
qtdeclarative is still ongoing. So from now on all changes targeted to Qt
5.12.0 release needs to be done in '5.12.0' and '5.12' is for Qt 5.12.1
release.
br,
Jani
From:
On Monday, 29 October 2018 18:20:35 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote:
> Lars, I have to wonder, don't you guys miss an opportunity here?
> Qt 5 was not developed with QBS in mind. As such it probably took more
> effort than needed to fit QBS to something that was originally QMake based.
>
> At the
Lars, I have to wonder, don't you guys miss an opportunity here?
Qt 5 was not developed with QBS in mind. As such it probably took more
effort than needed to fit QBS to something that was originally QMake based.
At the same time you will have to fit CMake to suit the needs for Qt6. (or
vice
Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 13:31, Tobias Hunger wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>> [...]
>> # Building
>>
>> The basic way of building with cmake is as follows:
>>
>> ```
>> cd {build directory}
>> cmake {path to source directory}
>> cmake --build .
>> ```
>
> Just a quick
I don't understand how can Qt just let QBS die like that. It's absolutely
fantastic.
I really hope open source development happens becuase ti will be bloody
shame if ti doesn't :(
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:54 AM Ola Røer Thorsen
wrote:
>
>> > >> We have been developing Qbs over the last
The idea is to stick to the cmake way. So cmake with a generator of choice,
potential cmake-gui usage to tweak if you’d like and finally the build tool
that corresponds to the generator.
Simon
> On 29. Oct 2018, at 17:58, Tomasz Siekierda wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 13:31, Tobias
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 13:31, Tobias Hunger wrote:
>
> Hi!
> [...]
> # Building
>
> The basic way of building with cmake is as follows:
>
> ```
> cd {build directory}
> cmake {path to source directory}
> cmake --build .
> ```
Just a quick question wrt to that snippet: what is the
>
>
> > >> We have been developing Qbs over the last years, and as such are
> > >> committed to it for some more time. We are planning on another feature
> > >> release in the first quarter of next year and will support it in Qt
> > >> Creator for at least another year.
>
This is _really_
On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:36:30 PDT Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I feel you are using your position as chan op to kick him far too rare.
> But I'm not sure where to bring that up.
The 15-day ban expired yesterday, so he's back today.
Next one will be 45 days.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira
On 2018-10-28, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> But if it isn't spam, what gives the list moderator the right to intervene in
> something that he/she believes is abusive behaviour? Same thing about IRC: we
> do have one annoying person who does come along every now and then, but most
> of his messages
On Monday, 29 October 2018 13:18:53 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> Currently the Qt Project defines itself as "meritocratic,
> consensus-based community interested in Qt".
>
> After the suggested I fail to see how it can be called either.
We'd have to amend to say that unprofessional behaviour (as
Hello! I've tried to provide Code of Conduct based on Arch Linux CoC,
pasted here: https://paste.kde.org/pzdmvyi3t
Will try to send it to codereview later, feel free to do it instead of me
if it will be easier for you,
I'm going to spend some time to learn how to do it correctly
пн, 29 окт. 2018
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 02:25:20PM +, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> > exactly what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
> > thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> > fear I'm not the
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:21 PM Sérgio Martins wrote:
> I'm wondering if you have any performance numbers regarding
> incremental builds on Windows, and specially "nmake install", which
> currently takes *several* minutes for qtbase alone. Through ETW I
> noticed it's due to hundreds of qmake
Mitch Curtis (29 October 2018 17:42)
> To solve #2, I first tried simply saving a QVariant containing a
> QByteArray (the contents of which were QDataStream's output). This
> didn't work because Qt's JSON implementation doesn't support
> QByteArray; it only supports QString. That is, calling
>
In a context of witch-hunts against even allegations of minimal harm,
NIkolai Marchenko (26 October 2018 20:17) wrote
>> And we already see the budding sentiments to that exact tune:
>> (quote from Edward Welbourne)
>>> That sometimes folk have felt so intimidated that they give up on
>>> trying
On 10/29/18 5:39 PM, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
Hi everyone!
While main heat on the mailing list is taken by topic how to encode that we
are nice, friendly and respectful to each other, I would like to show some
side project that I had. It is a proposal for base of metatype system for Qt6.
You
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:31 PM Tobias Hunger wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Some technical details on the wip/cmake branch in Gerrit. You can also
> find this information in cmake/README.md there.
I'm wondering if you have any performance numbers regarding
incremental builds on Windows, and specially
Hi all,
I would like to thank the people who have started this discussion. For me this
is a very positive thing and a step forward for the Qt community.
I really enjoy being part of the community. I want it to continue to be the
great group of people that it is today. And hopefully bigger, more
Hi Volker,
I think you ask a very good question. "If someone like Coraline were to direct
her energy to the Qt Project, how much in the open would you want their efforts
to be? Or would you rather simply trust that there are not enough maintainers
in the Qt project that would fall for their
Hi.
I'm trying to sort out some way of saving SplitView's (Qt Quick Controls 2)
state. The goals that I have are:
#1 Allow SplitView's state to easily be saved to QSettings. That's covered by
the patch in its current form.
#2 Allow SplitView's state to easily be saved to a custom project file,
I've got your idea. My personal position for now is probably more like do
not promise things you can't keep.
I still have no doubts about Qt and KDE people professionalism.
I agree discrimination solving is very important idea. But I guess it
probably should be solved via some additional
Hi everyone!
While main heat on the mailing list is taken by topic how to encode that we
are nice, friendly and respectful to each other, I would like to show some
side project that I had. It is a proposal for base of metatype system for Qt6.
You can look and comment at it here:
Yup, it's a sad day for people who liked QBS. Personally I'll check GN, which
has a nice syntax, not as nice as QBS but ... :) .
În ziua de luni, 29 octombrie 2018, la 18:32:11 EET, Ray Donnelly a scris:
> Agreed, a brilliant bit of technology, such a shame to see it deprecated.
>
> On Mon, Oct
RIP Qbs=(
Иван Комиссаров
> 29 окт. 2018 г., в 17:32, Ray Donnelly написал(а):
>
> Agreed, a brilliant bit of technology, such a shame to see it deprecated.
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:24 PM Corentin wrote:
>>
>>
>> Having had the pleasure to use QBS quite extensively (and successfully) in
I too feel like thanks are in order to the Qbs team.
Hopefully CMake integration with QtCreator will quickly improve and include
mobile platforms as well as embedded and desktop.
Il giorno lun 29 ott 2018 alle ore 17:24 Corentin
ha scritto:
>
> Having had the pleasure to use QBS quite
Agreed, a brilliant bit of technology, such a shame to see it deprecated.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:24 PM Corentin wrote:
>
>
> Having had the pleasure to use QBS quite extensively (and successfully) in
> the past, I would like to thank the QBS team and contributors for showing us
> what a
Having had the pleasure to use QBS quite extensively (and successfully) in
the past, I would like to thank the QBS team and contributors for showing
us what a sane, modern build system could look like.
So long!
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 13:17 Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As you will probably
> I think we have two camps:
> We want a CoC as a feel-good statement of inclusion and tolerance (I
think everyone is > committed to this)
> AND
> 1) We want to use existing situation of laws/self-policing OR
> 2) We want a CoC that contains a framework that can get people banned or
more
Hello,
On 2018-10-29 15:56, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Monday, 29 October 2018 04:43:09 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote:
> 1) it will copy containers. For Qt containers, that's rather cheap (two
> atomic refcount operations), but it's not free. And for Standard Library
> containers, that is likely very
On 10/29/18 4:56 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
2) it's implemented by way of a for loop inside a for loop, which is known
to throw optimisers out, generating slightly worse code
I would consider that the missed optimization is quite small, if not
negligible. And it can be solved in C++17:
On Monday, 29 October 2018 08:48:53 PDT Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> Asking? Maybe 1 or 2 times. (Sorry for not being super specific. There
> might be things I'm simply forgetting since it's been 10 years and
> there might be things that were not brought up to the whole committee
> but simply
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:11 PM Jason H wrote:
> Lydia,
>
> First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for your
> effort in it.
>
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates exactly
> what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
On Monday, 29 October 2018 04:43:09 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > 1) it will copy containers. For Qt containers, that's rather cheap (two
> > atomic refcount operations), but it's not free. And for Standard Library
> > containers, that is likely very expensive.
>
> But using for(:) with a Qt
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:53 AM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> Hi Lydia
>
> Thanks for chiming in.
>
> Note I asked about malicious request to the CWG, not legitimate ones. I mean
> baseless accusations, based on no actual fact, just attempts to smear someone
> or generate useless expediture of
On Monday, 29 October 2018 00:52:49 PDT Alexey Andreyev wrote:
> Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
> politics, religion, race, etc -- harassment protection correctly at
> international digital community with provided rules.
> I'm not saying we don't need rules.
Hey Jason,
You seem to assume that without a code of conduct there is no way that people
can get banned. That is not the case. In practice, people can be kicked out of
the Qt Project by the folks that control the respective systems. And by
extension by those who have some influence over those
> But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates
> exactly what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light. I
> fear I'm not the only one."? Would you say the project has created
> fear in you and
Lydia,
First, let me say I've stated my support of the KDE CoC. Thank you for your
effort in it.
But then you make a statement in your post script that demonstrates exactly
what I'm talking about. You stated "some emails in this thread sadly make me
see part of the project in a different
I'm just replying to this email to sumarize my opinion from the other email in
the "qMoveToConst helper for rvalue references to movable Qt containers?" thread.
I do not think it is time to deprecate foreach. Currently, the documentation
says it is discouraged, and that's fine. But the
I just changed it into a review request, so everyone can have a look in
gerrit:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/244005/
Cheers,
Frederik
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
I just changed it into a review request, so everyone can have a look in
gerrit:
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/244005/
Cheers,
Frederik
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
Hi all,
As you will probably remember, there have been lively discussions around what
kind of build tool to use for Qt 6 both during Qt Contributor Summits as well
as on this mailing list.
There has been a strong consent that we should move away from qmake as our
build tool for Qt due to many
Hi all,
I fully agree, Olivier.
Looking at https://docs.kdab.com/analysis/qtcreator/clazy.html gives
currently 223 potential detaching containers within range-based for, and
qtbase alone has 46 (https://docs.kdab.com/analysis/qt5/clazy.html).
Even if there may be some false positives, who
On 10/28/18 8:17 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday, 28 October 2018 11:49:08 PDT Olivier Goffart wrote:
It is a bit ironic that one reason given to deprecate Q_FOREACH is that it
may copy the container in some cases, while the alternative has the same
problem in much more common cases. (It
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 01:59:07PM -0400, Kyle Edwards wrote:
>However, I'm not sure how to create a new Qt module that's visible
>to the tests without also being installed/visible outside the
>tests.
>
that's an unsolved problem.
qtmultimedia/tests/auto/unit/qmediaserviceprovider also
Integrations
* qt5 5.9/5.11/5.12/dev integrations are healthy
Merges
* qtdeclarative 5.11->5.12 merge(10 days) is ongoing,
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/243050/
* qtbase 5.11->5.12 merge, need help,
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/243826/
* qtbase 5.12->dev merged on Saturday,
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:53:01 +0100, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> PS: As someone on the fringes of the Qt Project some emails in this
> thread sadly make me see part of the project in a different light.
I'm not too much interested in the topic of an CoC - not even in the
discussion about it - but
> If they want to be malicious, they'll find a way.
Opposite extreme is "who cares, let's accept something and sort it out on
the go later"
> Which promises in other CoCs do you find vulnerable?
Talking about CC and KDE's CoC, it's not obvious for me how to perform
politics, religion, race, etc
50 matches
Mail list logo
