Kevin, it is not spyware : Code and docs are open so you can examine it.
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/alekseykontsevich
18.01.2019, 04:26, "Kevin Kofler" :
> Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
>> Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
>>
>> https://coder
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 18:23:53 PST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> One discussion point that I miss here is whether spyware tooling should ever
> become a Qt component in the first place, independently of the outcome of
> the code and API reviews.
The difference between spyware and legitimate telemet
Aleksey Kontsevich wrote:
> Whether Qt Telemetry module will be included:
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=playground%2Ftelemetry.git;a=summary
> ?
One discussion point that I miss here is whether spyware tooling should ever
become a Qt component in the first place, independently of th
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 13:27:40 PST Martin Koller wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 16. Jänner 2019 19:44:27 CET Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > From QtWebKit perpective it would be great if Qt APIs which require
> > QString now would also accept QLatin1String at least for ASCII-only data
> is QtWebKit sti
On Mittwoch, 16. Jänner 2019 19:44:27 CET Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> From QtWebKit perpective it would be great if Qt APIs which require QString
> now would also accept QLatin1String at least for ASCII-only data
is QtWebKit still alive ?
Seems there is nobody working on it since more than a yea
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 10:43:19 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> Well it’s a pretty comprehensive solution including client components,
> agents and probes etc
>
> https://prometheus.io
>
> Database and query language etc are a significant part of it, and from my
> experience one of the more
Well it’s a pretty comprehensive solution including client components, agents
and probes etc
https://prometheus.io
Database and query language etc are a significant part of it, and from my
experience one of the more operable systems in that space. Which matters a lot.
But system monitoring, pr
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 08:33:23 PST Shawn Rutledge wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:23, Thiago Macieira
> > wrote:
> >
> > I have no idea what Prometheus is.
>
> Another time-series database in the same category as InfluxDB.
This sounds like a server-side tool.
--
Thiago Macieira - thia
> On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:23, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> I have no idea what Prometheus is.
Another time-series database in the same category as InfluxDB.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/dev
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 06:11:13 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
> to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are really API *change*
> reviews. Without a prior release to compare against, the tool for that
> doesn't kn
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 00:23:56 PST Volker Hilsheimer wrote:
> The proposed Qt Telemetry module focues on measuring usage of Qt
> applications. How long do end users run an app, what functionality do they
> use, etc. It’s not trying to address host or system observability, which is
> anyway a
FWIW, since I +2’ed the "Initial QtTelemetry commit for review” - that was a +2
in the context of “this can go into a playground repository, and more work will
follow to implement missing functionality, add documentation, support building
in namespaces etc”. This is in the spirit of making small
Paul Tvete (17 January 2019 15:33)
> I'm taking the opportunity to yet again point out that the term "API review"
> has a long history inside and outside of the Qt Project, and we need another
> name for the just-before-release check. This misunderstanding shows that the
> risk of miscommunication
On Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:11:13 CET Edward Welbourne wrote:
>Tuukka Turunen (17 January 2019 15:00)
>> I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool
> As I suspect you're thinking of the API reviews I create in the run-up
> to a release, I feel obliged to point out these are
Hi,
Yes, I was thinking that we could use a slightly similar approach for the new
modules as we do for the API change reviews (to the extent applicable,
considering we do not have anything to automatically compare to etc). That
said, we may be too close to Qt 5.13 feature freeze to fully do th
Tuukka Turunen (17 January 2019 15:00)
> I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as
> mailing lists are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the
> API review we can then decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt
> 5.13 as TP or not. For the existing modules we
Hi,
I think best would be to do the API review in codereview tool as mailing lists
are of limited efficiency in this purpose. Based on the API review we can then
decide if the module is ready to be part of Qt 5.13 as TP or not. For the
existing modules we do the API review a bit later, but for
Nope, I'm talking about the module.. But inside the plugin review I try to
limit my criticism to the QC part as there are more competent developer to tell
you how to do the stuff correctly inside a Qt module.
But even I see lots of stuff there that is a plain mess and should not be a
part of Qt
Hi
We have this thing that we like to try to update things to the latest. But
regarding Windows 10 I was told we shouldn't perhaps do that, because Qt's code
will select and different path depending on the API levels available from
Windows.
Does this community want to have their say and give t
Your are mostly talking about the plugin not telemetry module which is ok now.
And even in the plugin most of your concerns related not to API or logic (there
was much misunderstanding) like code styling and conventions explicit keyword
for ctor, connect() styles, comments, etc.
--
Best regar
We are happy to announce the release of Qt Creator 4.8.1!
https://blog.qt.io/blog/2019/01/17/qt-creator-4-8-1-released/
Br,
--
Eike Ziller
Principal Software Engineer
The Qt Company GmbH
Rudower Chaussee 13
D-12489 Berlin
eike.zil...@qt.io
http://qt.io
Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
Juha Varelius
>There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles
>conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do
You must be kidding... This is still a complete mess and definitely not ready
for more than a playground.
From:
Maurice Kalinowski (17 January 2019 09:18)
> Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should
> be part of Qt or not, no?
Sounds sensible.
> We are lacking documentation on the process here,
Indeed.
> all I could find was
> https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_fo
>That is beside all the concerns about the quality of the code and missing
>actions to fix these.
There were not concerns about code quality, :) was concerns about code styles
conventions, etc. All of these was fixed, only qdoc left to do.
--
Best regards,
Aleksey
Linked in https://www.linked
Hi all,
Coin production was updated at Thu Jan 17 11:33:19 UTC 2019.
https://testresults.qt.io/ci/aakeskim/production_updates/HEAD
https://testresults.qt.io/ci/aakeskim/production_updates/changelog_20190117.log
Ystävällisin terveisin / Kind regards,
Aapo Keskimölö | Senior Software Engineer | C
On 16 Jan 2019, at 22:30, Thiago Macieira
mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 11:56:20 PST Lars Knoll wrote:
In particular, I want to
take a look to see how it can integrate with a project my team is working
on:
https://clearlinux.org/documentation/clear-linux/
Well even for TP there should be some consensus on whether it should be part of
Qt or not, no?
We are lacking documentation on the process here, all I could find was
https://wiki.qt.io/Creating_a_new_module_or_tool_for_Qt#Graduating_from_the_Playground.
“This decision is done on the qt-developm
27 matches
Mail list logo
