Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

On 15/01/2019 16:42, Aleksey Kontsevich wrote: >> There were lots of comments about coding style and the generic approach > > That were fixed. The inline comments might have been fixed, but there was quite some disagreement about the patch's status after it was merged. That's reflected by the

Re: [Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

On Dienstag, 15. Januar 2019 19:43:57 CET Cristian Adam wrote: > Hi, > > With every Qt release we see how the new release improved over previous > releases in terms of speed, memory consumption, etc. > > Any chance of having UTF-8 storage support for QString? > Use QByteArray when you can.

Re: [Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

Cristian, the previous discussion is "Why can't QString use UTF-8 internally?" There is something wrong with our maillist, the best link I found is [1]. For some reason link to the thread head [2] is broken. [1] https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2015-February/040199.html [2]

Re: [Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 10:43:57 PST Cristian Adam wrote: > Any chance of having UTF-8 storage support for QString? No. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center ___

[Development] Qt6: Adding UTF-8 storage support to QString

Hi, With every Qt release we see how the new release improved over previous releases in terms of speed, memory consumption, etc. Any chance of having UTF-8 storage support for QString? UTF-8 is native on Linux and other *NIX platforms, Qt programs should use less memory, and perform better by

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

Il 15/01/19 16:19, Sampo Heikkinen ha scritto: Yes it reindexes everytime whenever I want to merge something. Then I have to run the re-archiving command which basically generates all the html-files again. Please go through the needed mailing lists viahttps://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail//

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 16:19, Sampo Heikkinen via Development > wrote: > > Hello > > Yes it reindexes everytime whenever I want to merge something. Then I have to > run the > re-archiving command which basically generates all the html-files again. > Please go through > the needed mailing

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

>There were lots of comments about coding style and the generic approach That were fixed. >Additionally no API review has taken place yet. That was not done - true. --  Best regards, Aleksey Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich 15.01.2019, 09:55, "Oliver Wolff" : > Hi

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

Hello Yes it reindexes everytime whenever I want to merge something. Then I have to run the re-archiving command which basically generates all the html-files again. Please go through the needed mailing lists via https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail// From there you see the archive and all

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

Il 15/01/19 15:15, Julius Bullinger ha scritto: It's also mails that have been in the archive already that are now missing. For example, search for "site:lists.qt-project.org creator" on Google. Most of the links there that have been archived do not work anymore. This affects all lists,

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 00:21:54 PST Lars Knoll wrote: > * We regularly merge dev into it > * BC breakages are fine > * SC breakages require a maintainer approval and a Changelog entry marking > this as a source incompatible change * All functions you’d like to remove > in qt6 need to be

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

Il 15/01/19 15:10, Sampo Heikkinen via Development ha scritto: Quicker look to development archives shows that it should be working now. At least my recent email can be found from archives. It’s most likely that every email sent during these two weeks are gone forever because file

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:25, Lars Knoll wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:00, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps

Re: [Development] Archiving is working

On 15.01.2019 15:10, Sampo Heikkinen via Development wrote: Quicker look to development archives shows that it should be working now. At least my recent email can be found from archives. It’s most likely that every email sent during these two weeks are gone forever because file permissions. I

[Development] Archiving is working

Quicker look to development archives shows that it should be working now. At least my recent email can be found from archives. It's most likely that every email sent during these two weeks are gone forever because file permissions. I will investigate this still though. br, Sampo Sampo Heikkinen

[Development] So the problem with the archiving is...

Hello Problem with the archiving with development list (and some other lists) is that whenever you send mail to it, it should appear in the current archive. In this case it doesnt happen. All file permissions are correct. If I use list "test", it works very well. I have to compare

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> > On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as > >> we > >> handle feature branches. The qt6/6/next/whatever branch would be for > >> development > >> that can't be put into dev yet as it is not suitable for the

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 14:00, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >>> >>> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as we >>> handle feature branches. The

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 14:00:50 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > >> > >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as > >> we handle feature

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:52, Lars Knoll wrote: > > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: >> >> An alternative way of seeing (and perhaps handling) is in the same way as we >> handle feature branches. The qt6/6/next/whatever branch would be for >> development >> that can't be

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:44, Kari Oikarinen wrote: > > > > On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø >> > wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen >>> > wrote: On Tuesday,

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15.1.2019 14.32, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø > > wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > On 15 Jan

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:32, Lars Knoll wrote: > > We can (and should) rename it to dev once the last 5.x version (presumably > 5.15) reaches feature freeze (ie. in a year from now). Or just go with 6.x, or 6.0, like I’ve proposed. Tor Arne ___

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:18, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen mailto:allan.jen...@qt.io>> wrote: On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen mailto:allan.jen...@qt.io>> wrote:

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 13:14, Allan Jensen wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> > On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:22:11 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > > >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: > >>> > >>> Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:13, Allan Jensen wrote: > > On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x >>> development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 12:06:17 CET Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: > > > > Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x > > development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related development. At some point (when > > 5.15 is branched) we’d

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:06, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > If retiring the ‘dev’ branch in favour of explicit 5.13, 5.14, 5.15 etc, then > at least we should choose a Qt 6 branch that is one of the two options above, > either 6.0 or 6.x, not ‘qt6’. That should be "If retiring the ‘dev’ branch

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:54, Lars Knoll wrote: > > Ok, guess I misunderstood a bit. My idea was to keep ‘dev’ for 5.x > development and ‘qt6’ for Qt 6 related development. At some point (when 5.15 > is branched) we’d basically rename qt6 to dev (because at that point there’s > no 5.x

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:44, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Lars Knoll mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø mailto:tor.arne.ves...@qt.io>> wrote: On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Lars Knoll wrote: >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >> >> >>> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: >>> >>> Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? >> >> Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6.

Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer

https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-2556 - Jani From: Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:23 PM To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Qt 5.13 feature freeze is getting closer On Monday, 14

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 11:17, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: > > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? > > Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6. > > Can we please use explicit version names instead of

Re: [Development] Branch for Qt 6

> On 15 Jan 2019, at 09:24, Lars Knoll wrote: > > Can the Gerrit/CI folks please create that branch? Going forward we will now have “dev” development in both Qt 5 and Qt 6. Can we please use explicit version names instead of arbitrary named “dev” and “qt6” branches? dev ==> 5.13 -> 5.14,

Re: [Development] [Releasing] HEADS-UP: Branching from '5.12' to '5.12.1' started

> -Original Message- > From: Development On Behalf Of > Edward Welbourne > Sent: maanantai 14. tammikuuta 2019 18.53 > To: Tuukka Turunen ; Alex Blasche > > Cc: development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] [Releasing] HEADS-UP: Branching from '5.12' to > '5.12.1' started >

[Development] Branch for Qt 6

Hi all, I’d like to have us create a branch for Qt 6 in qtbase. Different people are starting to collect quite some patches and we now need one place where those come together. For now I’d like to limit this to qtbase, as that’s where pretty much all Qt 6 related work happens, and we need to

[Development] Sampo testing

Lets see if this is stored in the mail archive. - Sampo Sampo Heikkinen Senior System Specialist Digital Business Telia Inmics-Nebula +358 9 6818 3848 sampo.heikki...@inmicsnebula.fi www.inmicsnebula.fi Valimotie 21, 00380